Clinical Trials Logo

Gingival Thickness clinical trials

View clinical trials related to Gingival Thickness.

Filter by:
  • None
  • Page 1

NCT ID: NCT04860388 Completed - Clinical trials for Orthodontic Treatment

Gingival Thickness of Impacted Maxillary Canines

Start date: May 29, 2019
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

This study was conducted to compare the periodontal health of labially and palatally impacted maxillary canines with similar mesio-distal displacement, perpendicular distance, and angulation, and to compare them with the contralateral canines that served as control teeth. Two null hypothesis were tested: (1) there are no differences in attached and keratinized gingival widths and gingival thickness between impacted teeth and controls, and (2) there are no differences in attached and keratinized gingival widths and gingival thickness of labially and palatally impacted canines.

NCT ID: NCT04632693 Recruiting - Gingival Thickness Clinical Trials

Soft Tissue Augmentation Using CAF With Either SCTG and Vitamin C Versus SCTG Alone in Management of RT1 Gingival Recession

Start date: September 1, 2020
Phase: N/A
Study type: Interventional

Compare gingival thickness following CAF With SCTG and Vitamin C Versus SCTG Alone in Management of RT1 Gingival Recession.

NCT ID: NCT03628742 Not yet recruiting - Gingival Thickness Clinical Trials

The Use Of Specially Designed Probe Versus Cone- Beam Computerized Tomography In The Measurement Of Gingival Thickness: Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Start date: August 20, 2018
Phase:
Study type: Observational

Accurate measurement of gingival thickness is crucial for decision making in the field of Periodontology and implant dentistry. Currently implemented techniques for the detection of gingival biotype are of limited reliability. They possess different drawbacks leading to the necessity for the development of a new method to overcome disadvantages of the available techniques. the rational of this study is to determine the accuracy of a specially designed probe in comparison to cone- beam computerized tomography which is accurate enough as found by Fu et al 2010.