Introduction: Gingival biotype has critical importance in determining the length and stability of miniscrew. This study was conducted to assessthickness of buccal attached gingiva at common miniscrew insertion sites in orthodontic patients with different facial types.

Material and Method: 60 orthodontic patients with no systemic disease and no transversal skeletal discrepancy were included in this study. All the subjects having healthy periodontium were considered. All subjects were within the age range of 18-25 years. Subjects were divided into three groups based on their Frankfort mandibular plane angle, namely; High angle, Normal angle, low angle respectively. Trans gingival probing was used to measure the thickness of the buccal attached gingiva. Endodontic spreader and digital vernier caliper were used to assess the gingival thickness. All measurements were recorded by the same examiner and data will be statistically analyzed.

Result: Results showed no statistically significant difference among the gingival thickness values of different facial types. No statistically significant difference found between male and female except in maxillary posterior region where males showed thicker biotype when compared to females.

Conclusion: No statistically significant difference was found between the thicknesses of maxillary and mandibular posterior buccal approximal attached gingiva and different facial types.

Keywords: Miniscrew, attached gingiva, vernier caliper, spreader.

1. Cope JB. Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: A paradigm shift. Semin Orthod. 2005;11(1 SPEC. ISS.):3–9.
2. Pilon JJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maltha JC. Magnitude of orthodontic forces and rate of bodily tooth movement. An experimental study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(1):16–23.
3. Weinstein S, Haak DC, Morris LY, Snyder BB, Attaway HE. On equilibrium theory of tooth position. Angle Orthod 26. 1963;33(1):1–26.
4. Bobak V, Christiansen RL, Hollister SJ, Kohn DH. Stress-related molar responses to the transpalatal arch: a finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(5):512–8.
5. Kyung H-M, Park H-S, Bae S-M, Sung J-H, Kim L-B. Development of orthodontic micro-implants for intraoral anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2003;37(6):321–8.
6. Chen F, Terada K, Handa K. Anchorage effect of various shape palatal osseointegrated implants: A finite element study. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(3):378–85.
7. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;97(4):336–48.
8. Parmar R, Reddy V, Reddy SK, Reddy D. Determination of soft tissue thickness at orthodontic miniscrew placement sites using ultrasonography for customizing screw selection. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016 Oct 1;150(4):651–8.
9. Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: A meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2012;142(5):577-595.e7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.016
10. Papadopoulos MA, Tarawneh F. The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: A comprehensive review. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2007;103(5):6–15.
11. Deguchi T, Nasu M, Murakami K, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;129(6):721.e7-721.e12.
12. Yi Lin S, Mimi Y, Ming Tak C, Kelvin Weng Chiong F, Hung Chew W. A study of success rate of miniscrew implants as temporary anchorage devices in Singapore. Int J Dent. 2015;2015.
13. Vandana KL, Savitha B. Thickness of gingiva in association with age, gender and dental arch location. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(7):828–30.
14. Monnerat C, Restle L, Mucha JN. Tomographic mapping of mandibular interradicular spaces for placement of orthodontic mini-implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2009; 135(4):428.e1-428.e9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.024
15. Fayeda MMS, Pazerab P, Katsarosc C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(5):939–51.
16. Baumgaertel S. Hard and soft tissue considerations at miniimplant insertion sites. J Orthod. 2014;41:S3–7.
17. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(7):654–7.
18. Olsson M, Ljndhe J, Marinello CP. On the relationship between crown form and clinical features of the gingiva in adolescents. 1993;(i):570–7.
19. Rajashri Kolte, Abhay Kolte AM. Assessment of gingival thickness with regards to age, gender and arch location. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014;18(4):478–81.
20. Müller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(9):621–6.
21. Alkan Ö, Kaya Y. The thickness of posterior buccal attached gingiva at common miniscrew insertion sites in subjects with different facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2019 Dec 1;156(6):800–7.
22. Cha BK, Lee YH, Lee NK, Choi DS, Baek SH. Soft tissue thickness for placement of an orthodontic miniscrew using an ultrasonic device. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(3):403–8.

Dr Akash Lavate

Reader Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, PDU Dental College Solapur