Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 394-395
Assessment of gingival contours for esthetic diagnosis and treatment: A clinical study

Department of Periodontology, HKES's S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Veena A Patil
Department of Periodontology, HKES's S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Gulbarga, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.118005

Rights and Permissions

Background: The purposes of this study were to quantify some clinical parameters that are useful as esthetic guidelines when the gingival contour is modified and to compare the left and right sides of the six maxillary anterior teeth. Materials and Methods: Two hundred and forty interdental papilla sites in 20 healthy patients were evaluated. Interdental papilla heights of maxillary anterior teeth were measured from the gingival zenith, along with clinical crown lengths. Percentages of papilla height to crown length were computed and defined as papilla proportion, mesial papilla proportion (MPP) and distal papilla proportion (DPP). Results: Mean interdental papilla heights of maxillary teeth was 3.83 mm mesially and 3.8 mm distally. Mean MPP was 43.69% ( n = 120) and DPP was 44.57% ( n = 120). No significant differences were found between MPP and DPP for maxillary incisors ( P ≥ 0.5). Conclusion: Papilla proportions were approximately 44% for all tooth groups. Canines demonstrated a trend toward increased distal papilla heights. In the present study the average MPP and DPP of the central incisor (CI), lateral incisor (LI) and canine (CA) measured were 43%, 41%, 46%, 40%, and 42% 51% respectively.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded211    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal