To evaluate the accuracy of assessment of palatal mucosal thickness (PMT) and determination of anatomical location of greater palatine foramen (GPF) using a minimally invasive superimposed digital technique (SDT).
Materials and Methods:
This cross-sectional observational single-blinded study included 32 periodontally healthy participants in the age range of 20–50 years. A single calibrated examiner performed all the measurements. PMT was evaluated at 3.8 and 13 mm from the palatal mucosal margin of 5 teeth, that is, canine (C), 2 premolars (P1, P2) and 2 molars (M1, M2) in each participant. The PMT was determined by ‘bone sounding’ using endodontic files and digital vernier calliper in direct technique (DT) and superimposition of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) and Stereolithography (STL) files in SDT. Anatomical position of GPF relative to maxillary molars was assessed using SDT.
Results:
PMT varied by tooth region, with the least thickness at the canine region and highest at the first molar region. The agreement between DT and SDT was excellent, with high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (0.876–0.934) and consistent results in the Bland-Altman plot. The location of the GPF was most commonly found in the third molar region.
Conclusion:
The safety zone determined by using SDT could be a potential, minimally invasive alternative for assessment of PMT and anatomical position of GPF relative to maxillary molars prior to periodontal plastic surgery, which may be beneficial in the success of surgical procedures.
FoyleD, KormasI, AfouxenidesP, . Soft tissue conditioning around teeth: A narrative review. Dent Rev, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.dentre.2024.100144.
2.
YilmazHG, BokeF and AyaliA. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the soft tissue thickness and greater palatine foramen location in the palate. J Clin Periodontol, 2015; 42(5): 458–461. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12390.
RameshKS, SwethaP, KrishnanV, . Assessment of thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa and maximum graft dimensions at palatal vault associated with age and gender: A clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res: JCDR, 2014; 8(5): ZC09.
5.
MostafaD and FatimaN.Gingival recession and root coverage up to date: A literature review. Dent Rev, 2022; 2(1): 100008. DOI: 10.1016/j.dentre.2021.100008.
6.
ZucchelliGD and De SanctisM. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands. J Periodontol, 2000; 71(9): 1506–1514. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1506.
7.
Monnet-CortiV, SantiniA, GliseJM, . Connective tissue graft for gingival recession treatment: Assessment of the maximum graft dimensions at the palatal vault as a donor site. J Periodontol, 2006; 77(5): 899–902. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050047.
8.
KuriakoseA and RajuS.Assessment of thickness of palatal mucosal donor site and its association with age and gender. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2012; 16(3): 370–374.
9.
Wara-aswapatiN, PitiphatW, ChandraphoN, . Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol, 2001; 72(10): 1407–1412. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1407.
10.
BarrivieraM, DuarteWR, JanuárioAL, . A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol, 2009; 36(7): 564–568. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-51x.2009. 01422.x.
11.
SongJE, UmYJ, KimCS, . Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa: The use of computerized tomography. J Periodontol, 2008; 79(3): 406–412. DOI: 10.1902/jop. 2008.070302.
12.
HilgenfeldT, KästelT, HeilA, . High-resolution dental magnetic resonance imaging for planning palatal graft surgery—A clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol, 2018; 45(4): 462–470. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12870.
13.
EgerT, MullerHP and HeineckeA.Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol, 1996; 23(9): 839–845. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00621.x.
14.
StuderSP, AllenEP, ReesTC, . The thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. J Periodontol, 1997; 68(2): 145–151. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1997. 68.2.145.
15.
DasG, AhmedAR, SulemanG, . A comparative evaluation of dentogingival tissue using transgingival probing and cone-beam computed tomography. Medicina, 2022; 58(9): 1312. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58091312.
16.
MüllerHP, SchallerN and EgerT.Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: A methodologic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol, 1999; 88(2): 248–253. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70123-x.
17.
HeilA, SchwindlingFS, JelinekC, . Determination of the palatal masticatory mucosa thickness by dental MRI: A prospective study analysing age and gender effects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2018; 47(2): 20170282.
18.
SruthiMA and RamakrishnanM.Transpapillary injection technique as a substitute for palatal infiltration: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2021; 14(5): 640.
19.
ShahHK, SharmaS and ShresthaS.Gingival biotype classification, assessment, and clinical importance: A review. J Nepal Soc Perio Oral Implantol, 2020; 4(2): 83–88.
20.
ShujaatS, BornsteinMM, PriceJB, . Integration of imaging modalities in digital dental workflows—Possibilities, limitations, and potential future developments. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2021; 50(7): 20210268. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210268.
21.
Von ElmE, AltmanDG, EggerM, . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet, 2007; 370(9596): 1453–1457.
22.
Lo GiudiceR, GallettiC, TribstJP, . In vivo analysis of intraoral scanner precision using open-source 3D software. Prosthesis, 2022; 4(4): 554–563. DOI: 10.3390/prosthesis4040045.
23.
StefanelliLV, FranchinaA, PrannoA, . Use of intraoral scanners for full dental arches: Could different strategies or overlapping software affect accuracy?. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021; 18(19): 9946. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18199946.
24.
BiunJ, DudhiaR and AroraH.The in vitro accuracy of fiducial marker-based versus markerless registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography scan in the presence of restoration artifact. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2023; 34(11): 1257–1266. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14166.
25.
WeissheimerA, MenezesLM, KoerichL, . Fast three-dimensional superimposition of cone beam computed tomography for orthopaedics and orthognathic surgery evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015; 44(9): 1188–1196. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.04.001.
26.
ChoiDS, JeongYM, JangI, . Accuracy and reliability of palatal superimposition of three-dimensional digital models. Angle Orthod, 2010; 80(4): 497–503. DOI: 10.2319/101309-569.1.
27.
SuomalainenA, PakbaznejadEsmaeili E and RobinsonS.Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging, 2015; 6(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-014-0379-4.
28.
SaidKN, AbuKhalid AS and FarookFF. Anatomic factors influencing dimensions of soft tissue graft from the hard palate: A clinical study. Clin Exp Dent Res, 2020; 6(4): 462–469. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.298.
29.
RathodS, DhandeS, LathiyaV, . Assessment of the greater palatine foramen position in an Indian population: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ, 2022; 14(2): 135–140. DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_7_22.
30.
GuerreroME, JacobsR, LoubeleM, . State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig, 2006; 10(1): 1–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0031-2.
31.
SuomalainenA, PakbaznejadEsmaeili E and RobinsonS.Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging, 2015; 6(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.1007/s13244-014-0379-4.
32.
JanuárioAL, BarrivieraM and DuarteWR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: A novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2008; 20(6): 366–373. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00210.x.
33.
OgawaM, KatagiriS, KoyanagiT, . Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in evaluation of palatal mucosa thickness. J Clin Periodontol, 2020; 47(4): 479–488. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13254.
34.
GuptaP, JanSM, BehalR, . Accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in determining the thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2015; 19(4): 396–400.
35.
Couso-QueirugaE, TattanM, AhmadU, . Assessment of gingival thickness using digital file superimposition versus direct clinical measurements. Clin Oral Investig, 2021; 25(4): 2353–2361. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03558-0.
36.
ReiserGM, BrunoJF, MahanPE, . The subepithelial connective tissue graft palatal donor site: Anatomic considerations for surgeons. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 1996; 16(2): 130–137.
37.
MüllerHP, HeineckeA, SchallerN, . Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol, 2000; 27(9): 621–626. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027009621.x.
38.
ChoudharyV, KosalaM and BhandariSK. Evaluation of thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa in relation with age and gender. Indian J Dent Adv, 2019; 11(1): 22–27. DOI: 10.5866/2019.11.10022.
39.
ChoKH, YuSK, LeeMH, . Histological assessment of the palatal mucosa and greater palatine artery with reference to subepithelial connective tissue grafting. Anat Cell Biol, 2013; 46(3): 171–176. DOI: 10.5115/acb.2013.46.3.171.
40.
FerryK, AlQallafH, BlanchardS, . Evaluation of the accuracy of soft tissue thickness measurements with three different methodologies: An in vitro study. J Periodontol, 2022; 93(10): 1468–1475. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.21-0692.
41.
AjankarVP, GuptaSD, NairS, . Analysis of position of greater palatine foramen in central Indian adult skulls: A consideration for maxillary nerve block. Indian J Pharm Biol Res, 2014; 2(1): 51–54. DOI: 10.30750/ijpbr.2.1.8.
42.
WangT, KuoK, ShihC, . Assessment of the relative locations of the greater palatine foramen in adult Chinese skulls. Acta Anat, 1988; 132: 182–186. DOI: 10.1159/000146572.
43.
RathodS, DhandeS, LathiyaV, . Assessment of the greater palatine foramen position in an Indian population: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ, 2022; 14(2): 135–140. DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_7_22.
44.
TavelliL, BarootchiS, RavidàA, . What is the safety zone for palatal soft tissue graft harvesting based on the locations of the greater palatine artery and foramen? A systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2019; 77(2): 271.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.10.002.
45.
KimDW, TempskiJ, SurmaJ, . Anatomy of the greater palatine foramen and canal and their clinical significance in relation to the greater palatine artery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Radiol Anat, 2023; 45(2): 101–119. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-022-03061-z.
46.
ChoKH, YuSK, LeeMH, . Histological assessment of the palatal mucosa and greater palatine artery with reference to subepithelial connective tissue grafting. Anat Cell Biol, 2013; 46(3): 171–176. DOI: 10.5115/acb.2013.46.3.171.
47.
FahriogluSL, FirincioglulariM and OrhanK. Gender-specific variations in greater palatine foramen anatomy: Insights from CBCT scans in the North Cyprus population. Med Sci Monit, 2024; 30: e945466-1. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.945466.
48.
TavelliL, BarootchiS, NamaziSS, . The influence of palatal harvesting technique on the donor site vascular injury: A split-mouth comparative cadaver study. J Periodontol, 2020; 91: 83–92.
49.
ZucchelliG, MounssifI, MazzottiC, . Does the dimension of the graft influence patient morbidity and root coverage outcomes? A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol, 2014; 41: 708–716.
50.
BurkhardtR, HämmerleCH, LangNP, . Self-reported pain perception of patients after mucosal graft harvesting in the palatal area. J Clin Periodontol, 2015; 42: 281–287.
51.
MainoGNE, VallesC, SantosA, . Influence of suturing technique on wound healing and patient morbidity after connective tissue harvesting: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol, 2018; 45(8): 977–985.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
