Measuring periodontal biologic distances: Transperiodontal vs transsurgical probing

Abstract

Objective. Crown-lengthening surgeries are widely indicated in dental practice and the proper measurement of biological distances is imperative for accurate surgical, prosthetic or restorative planning. However, few clinical studies have evaluated the methods for measuring these distances. The aim of this study was to compare the transperiodontal (before incision/BI: immediately before the intrasulcular incision) and transsurgical (after incision/AI: immediately after mucoperiosteal flap reflection) probing methods for measuring the biological distance. Materials and methods. Data from a previous randomized and controlled clinical trial were subjected to a secondary analysis, which included nine patients (26 ± 5 years), with a total of 18 teeth requiring restorative treatment. A single calibrated examiner measured the distances (in millimetres) between the cervical walls of the caries/cavity preparation and the bone crest. Results. Absolute agreement between the distances measured by the BI and AI methods was 88.88%. Mean distances by BI (1.44 ± 0.51 mm; range = 1–2 mm) and AI (1.55 ± 0.61 mm; range = 1–3 mm) showed no significant differences. Conclusions. Transperiodontal probing appears to be suitable for the measurement of biological distances and may be used as an important tool for surgical planning.

Key Words::

• clinical trial
• crown lengthening
• diagnosis
• periodontics
• planning techniques

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.