Submitted: 06 Jul 2010
Accepted: 27 Aug 2010
ePublished: 22 Sep 2010
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Periodontol Implant Dent. 2010;2(1): 37-42.
  Abstract View: 153
  PDF Download: 175

Original Article

Occurrence, Extension and Severity of the Gingival Recession in a Greek Adult Population Sample

Nikolaos Andreas Chrysanthakopoulos*

1 Dental Surgeon, Resident in Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 401 General Military Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece


Background and aim. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the frequency, extension and severity of the gingival recession in a Greek adult population sample.

Materials and methods. The study was performed on 800 patients, 336 males and 446 females between 18-77 years old, which sought dental treatment in a private dental practice. All measurements of recession depth and width were done with a periodontal probe and under sufficient illumination. The type of gingival recessions was evaluated based on Miller’s classification. Statistical analysis was accomplished using chi-square test.

Results. The overall plaque indices were significantly reduced from 39.37 ± 20.76 to 20.62 ± 13.42 using the tooth wipe, and from 35.82 ± 16.82 to 19.70 ± 11.15 using the manual brush (P = 0.000). There were no significant differences between tooth wipe and manual brush for removing plaque at total surfaces (46.01 ± 17.2% vs. 47.73 ± 17.04%, P = 0.75) and proximal surfaces (28.76 ± 23.15% vs. 43.71 ± 23.77%, P = 0.06). However, the plaque reduction at buccolingual surfaces by tooth wipe was significantly higher than that by manual brush (79.37 ± 23.54% vs. 56.83 ± 22.33%, P = 0.001).

Conclusion. Considering the high prevalence of this clinical study, implementation of oral hygiene instructions and conducting analytical and experimental researches would be a necessity.

Keywords: Adults, epidemiology, gingival recession, Miller’s classification
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Security code

Abstract View: 153

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 175

Your browser does not support the canvas element.