Yang X, Zhou T, Zhou N, Man Y. The thickness of labial bone affects the esthetics of immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the esthetic zone. A prospective cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21:482–91.
Article
Google Scholar
Procopio O, Trojan D, Frigo AC, Paolin A. Use of homologous bone for alveolar crest reconstruction in 483 patients with 5 years’ outcomes post implantation. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;23:353–63.
Article
Google Scholar
Zhang X, Li Y, Ge Z, Zhao H, Miao L, Pan Y. The dimension and morphology of alveolar bone at maxillary anterior teeth in periodontitis. A retrospective analysis-using CBCT. Int J Oral Sci. 2020;12:4–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Fu JH, Lee A, Wang HL. Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26:499–508.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Steigmann M, Monje A, Chan HL, Wang HL. Emergence profile design based on implant position in the esthetic zone. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014;34:559–63.
Article
Google Scholar
Stipetic J, Hrala Z, Celebic A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity dependent on gender and body mass index. Coll Antropol. 2005;29:243–7.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wara-aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol. 2001;72:1407–12.
Article
Google Scholar
Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J, Lang NP. Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2010;21:37–42.
Article
Google Scholar
Alhajj WA. Gingival phenotypes and their relation to age, gender and other risk factors. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:87.
Article
Google Scholar
De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36:428–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010;30:237–43.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Eghbali A, De Rouck T, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36:958–63.
Article
Google Scholar
Aguilar-Duran L, Mir-Mari J, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellon E. Is measurement of the gingival biotype reliable? Agreement among different assessment methods. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020;25:e144–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: Are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140238.
Article
Google Scholar
Braut V, Bornstein MM, Belser U, Buser D. Thickness of the anterior maxillary facial bone wall-a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31:125–31.
PubMed
Google Scholar
Jin SH, Park JB, Kim N, Park S, Kim KJ, Kim Y, Kook YA, Ko Y. The thickness of alveolar bone at the maxillary canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2012;42:173–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Nasseh I, Al-Rawi W. Cone beam computed tomography. Dent Clin North Am. 2018;62:361–91.
Article
Google Scholar
Fourie Z, Damstra J, Gerrits PO, Ren Y. Accuracy and reliability of facial soft tissue depth measurements using cone beam computer tomography. Forensic Sci Int. 2010;199:9–14.
Article
Google Scholar
Yanikoglu F, Avci H, Celik ZC, Tagtekin D. Diagnostic performance of ICDAS II, FluoreCam and ultrasound for flat surface caries with different depths. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020;46:1755–60.
Article
Google Scholar
Schapher M, Goncalves M, Mantsopoulos K, Iro H, Koch M. Transoral ultrasound in the diagnosis of obstructive salivary gland pathologies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019;45:2338–48.
Article
Google Scholar
Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Kerckaert I, Van Hoof T. Ultrasonic assessment of mucosal thickness around implants: validity, reproducibility, and stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18:51–61.
Article
Google Scholar
Tzoumpas M, Mohr B, Kurtulus-Waschulewski I, Wahl G. The use of high-frequency ultrasound in the measurement of thickness of the maxillary attached gingiva. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28:374–82.
Article
Google Scholar
Ganti B, Bednarz W, Komuves K, Vag J. Reproducibility of the PIROP ultrasonic biometer for gingival thickness measurements. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31:263–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Slak B, Daabous A, Bednarz W, Strumban E, Maev RG. Assessment of gingival thickness using an ultrasonic dental system prototype: a comparison to traditional methods. Ann Anat. 2015;199:98–103.
Article
Google Scholar
Chan HL, Sinjab K, Chung MP, Chiang YC, Wang HL, Giannobile WV, Kripfgans OD. Non-invasive evaluation of facial crestal bone with ultrasonography. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0171237.
Article
Google Scholar
Zimbran A, Dudea S, Dudea D. Evaluation of periodontal tissues using 40MHz ultrasonography. Preliminary report. Med Ultrason. 2013;15:6–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Ganji KK. Noninvasive evaluation of the correlation between thickness of the buccal bone and attached gingiva of maxillary premolars. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;3:263–7.
Google Scholar
Kolte R, Kolte A, Mahajan A. Assessment of gingival thickness with regards to age, gender and arch location. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014;18:478–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Eger T, Muller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23:839–45.
Article
Google Scholar
Muller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27:621–6.
Article
Google Scholar
Hong CE, Lee JY, Choi J, Joo JY. Prediction of the alveolar bone level after the extraction of maxillary anterior teeth with severe periodontitis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2015;45:216–22.
Article
Google Scholar
Kim Y-J, Park J-M, Kim S, Koo K-T, Seol Y-J, Lee Y-M, Rhyu I-C, Ku Y. New method of assessing the relationship between buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016;46:372–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Sharma S, Thakur SL, Joshi SK, Kulkarni SS. Measurement of gingival thickness using digital vernier caliper and ultrasonographic method: a comparative study. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014;5:138–43.
Article
Google Scholar
Vandana KL, Savitha B. Thickness of gingiva in association with age, gender and dental arch location. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:828–30.
Article
Google Scholar
Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J Periodontol. 2010;81:569–74.
Article
Google Scholar
Amid R, Mirakhori M, Safi Y, Kadkhodazadeh M, Namdari M. Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;79:1–6.
Article
Google Scholar
La Rocca AP, Alemany AS, Levi P Jr, Juan MV, Molina JN, Weisgold AS. Anterior maxillary and mandibular biotype: relationship between gingival thickness and width with respect to underlying bone thickness. Implant Dent. 2012;21:507–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Stein JM, Lintel-Hoping N, Hammacher C, Kasaj A, Tamm M, Hanisch O. The gingival biotype: measurement of soft and hard tissue dimensions—a radiographic morphometric study. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40:1132–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Maynard JG Jr, Wilson RD. Diagnosis and management of mucogingival problems in children. Dent Clin North Am. 1980;24:683–703.
PubMed
Google Scholar