BackgroundThis study investigated the agreement among dentists in classifying gingival phenotype (GP) through periodontal probe visibility (PPV) assessment with various probe types and the visual method. Additionally, the relationship between GP classifications and gingival thickness (GT) was evaluated.MethodsPhotographs were taken with standard periodontal probe (SPP), color‐coded periodontal probe (CCPP) tips in white, green, and blue, as well as metal phenotype probe (MPP) tips in gray and black. Evaluators (periodontist, periodontics resident, endodontics resident, dental student) assessed the photographs and classified the GPs. GT was measured by trans gingival probing.ResultsVisual method showed poor to fair agreement to classify GP. The lowest agreement regarding PPV was noted with white‐tipped CCPP. The highest agreement in singular PPV was observed with CCPP blue (κ = 0.932), followed by CCPP green (κ = 0.791), MPP black (κ = 0.783), SPP (κ = 0.730), and MPP gray (κ = 0.690). Combined PPV data revealed fair to moderate agreement with CCPP and moderate to substantial agreement with MPP in GP classification. The corresponding GT to different GP classifications based on combined PPV were comparable. The agreement between SPP and CCPP in classifying non‐thin phenotypes was 89.8%, while the agreement between SPP and MPP was 75.4%. Based on PPV, no significant GT cutoff value was found to distinguish between thin and non‐thin phenotypes.ConclusionDetermining a precise GT that guarantees the visibility of a given probe can be difficult when evaluating GP. Regardless of the type of probe, the PPV method has a high potential for misclassifying GP, despite having an acceptable agreement.Plain language summaryGingival phenotype (GP) is constituted by thickness of the gums and width of keratinized tissue around teeth. Direct visual evaluation or evaluating a periodontal probe's visibility beneath gums are established techniques to classify gingival phenotype. This study investigated how dentists classify GP using visual assessments and different types of periodontal probes, while also exploring the relationship between GP classifications and gingival thickness. Results showed varied agreement among dentists in classifying GP, with lower agreement observed when using certain types of probes, notably the white‐tipped phenotype probe. The highest agreement was found with the blue phenotype probe. Data from periodontal probe visibility assessments indicated fair to moderate agreement with certain probes, suggesting some inconsistency in classification methods. Interestingly, GP classification with visual assessments or probes did not correlate with gingival thickness, which may highlight the importance of considering both factors in clinical practice. These findings underline the need for attention when relying solely on visual assessments or specific probe types for accurate GP classification.

中文翻译：

---

通过视觉和探针可见性评估进行牙龈表型分类：与厚度和探针设计的关系


背景本研究调查了牙科医生通过使用各种探针类型和视觉方法进行牙周探针可见性（PPV）评估来对牙龈表型（GP）进行分类的一致性。此外，还评估了GP分类与牙龈厚度（GT）之间的关系。方法使用标准牙周探针（SPP）、白色、绿色和蓝色的颜色编码牙周探针（CCPP）尖端以及金属表型探针拍摄照片(MPP) 尖端为灰色和黑色。评估者（牙周病医生、牙周病住院医师、牙髓病住院医师、牙科学生）评估照片并对全科医生进行分类。 GT 通过经龈探诊测量。结果目视方法显示 GP 分类的一致性较差到一般。关于 PPV 的最低一致性是白端 CCPP。单一 PPV 与 CCPP 蓝色的一致性最高（ κ = 0.932)，然后是 CCPP 绿色 ( κ = 0.791), MPP 黑色 ( κ = 0.783), SPP ( κ = 0.730) 和 MPP 灰色 ( κ = 0.690）。合并 PPV 数据显示，在 GP 分类中，与 CCPP 基本一致，与 MPP 基本一致。基于组合 PPV 的不同 GP 分类对应的 GT 具有可比性。 SPP和CCPP在非瘦表型分类上的一致性为89.8%，而SPP和MPP之间的一致性为75.4%。基于 PPV，没有发现显着的 GT 截止值来区分瘦和非瘦表型。 结论 在评估 GP 时，确定保证给定探针可见性的精确 GT 可能很困难。 无论探针类型如何，PPV 方法尽管具有可接受的一致性，但仍有很大可能对 GP 进行错误分类。通俗语言摘要牙龈表型 (GP) 由牙龈厚度和牙齿周围角化组织的宽度构成。直接视觉评估或评估牙龈下方牙周探针的可见度是对牙龈表型进行分类的既定技术。本研究调查了牙医如何使用视觉评估和不同类型的牙周探针对 GP 进行分类，同时还探讨了 GP 分类与牙龈厚度之间的关系。结果显示，牙医对 GP 进行分类的一致性不同，使用某些类型的探针（尤其是白色尖端表型探针）时观察到的一致性较低。与蓝色表型探针的一致性最高。牙周探针可见性评估的数据表明与某些探针有中等至中等程度的一致性，表明分类方法存在一些不一致。有趣的是，通过视觉评估或探针进行的 GP 分类与牙龈厚度无关，这可能凸显了在临床实践中考虑这两个因素的重要性。这些发现强调，在仅依靠视觉评估或特定探头类型进行准确的 GP 分类时需要引起注意。