
47
J Gandhara Med Dent Sci
coincidence (2-6%), whereas lateral incisors
demonstrated moderately higher coincidence (24-32%).
Canines displayed the highest coincidence rates (40-
50%), indicating a more balanced distribution of zenith
placement. These results are consistent with previous
studies, such as those by Mattos and Santana, who
reported distal zenith displacement across canines,
laterals, and centrals in varying proportions.
13
Despite
dierences among tooth types, tooth shapes, and
gingival biotypes, no statistically signicant gender
dierences were found, aligning with reports from
Appukuttan et al. and Chu et al., showing
displacements between 0.7 and 1.2 mm.
14,15
Apico-
coronal displacement of lateral incisors showed no
gender-specic dierences, with consistent median
values, comparable to ndings by Gaddale.
16,17
The
clinical relevance of understanding zenith positioning
lies in its impact on tooth proportion, gingival contour,
and overall smile harmony. Ideally, central incisors and
canines exhibit zeniths slightly distal to the VBM,
while lateral incisors typically align with it, creating
natural gingival curvature and symmetry. Deviations
from these norms may compromise esthetic outcomes
in smile design and restorative procedures. These
results are consistent with earlier research showing that
gingival architecture is subject to signicant inter-
individual variability even within the same
demographic group, suggesting that individual
anatomical factors may strongly inuence biological
variability in gingival form than by gender. The
gingival biotype, which varies in thickness, shape, and
recession susceptibility, may be a signicant biological
cause for this heterogeneity. While thinner biotypes are
associated with increased scalloping and apical
migration of the zenith, thicker, brotic biotypes often
exhibit more stable, less scalloped gingival edges. The
small magnitude of displacement dierences between
genders indicates that biotype distribution may be
relatively similar between male and female patients in
this population, even though biotype was not directly
measured in this study. Clinically, these results imply
that gender-based assumptions are not justied when
planning esthetic restorations or gingival recontouring
in the anterior maxilla. Additionally, localized anatomic
features, such as tooth prominence, root angulation, and
alveolar crest morphology, may be more important than
demographic variables in determining zenith location.
Ignoring patient-specic gingival zenith variability can
result in non-ideal emerging proles, asymmetric
gingival contours, or poor pink-white esthetics in
restorative and implant treatments, particularly in the
esthetic zone. This bolsters arguments for including
gingival zenith assessment into processes for digital
smile design and pre-operative planning.
LIMITATIONS
One of the main strengths of this study is that it
addresses an important aspect of dental esthetics by
systematically evaluating the relationship between the
gingival zenith and the vertically bisected midline in
maxillary anterior teeth. The use of well-defined
inclusion criteria and standardized measurement
methods provided clarity and consistency in data
collection. In addition, the study provides valuable
baseline information for clinicians, particularly for
treatment planning in restorative and esthetic dentistry.
However, several limitations should also be considered.
This was a single-center, cross-sectional study
conducted with a relatively small sample of young
adults aged 18-30 years, limiting the generalizability of
the results to broader populations. The use of
consecutive, non-random sampling may have
introduced selection bias. Measurements were made on
stone casts obtained from alginate impressions, which
are prone to minor dimensional changes, and examiner
calibration or reliability testing was not reported,
leaving room for operator-related variability. Important
clinical variables, such as gingival biotype, smile line,
arch form, and tooth shape, were not evaluated, which
could have inuenced the results. Finally, being cross-
sectional, the study does not provide insight into how
the gingival zenith position may change over time or
following dental treatment. Future studies with larger,
more diverse samples, digital intraoral scanning to
improve accuracy, and longitudinal follow-up are
recommended to build on these ndings and establish
more generalizable clinical guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
With central incisors exhibiting the most signicant
displacement and canines exhibiting the positional
stability, the gingival zenith seldom aligns with the
vertically bisected midline. Since gender had no
discernible impact, these results highlight the need for
individualized evaluation rather than relying on broad
aesthetic standards. To achieve harmonious gingival
architecture, canines can serve as reliable reference
points in clinical settings. To improve aesthetic
standards, more research using bigger, digitally
evaluated samples is advised.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None
FUNDING SOURCES: None
REFERENCES
1. Pham TAV, Nguyen PA. Morphological features of smile
attractiveness and related factors inuence perception and
gingival aesthetic parameters. Int Dent J. 2022 Feb;72(1):67–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2021.08.010. PMID: 34695339
Evaluation of Coincidence of Gingival Zenith and Vertically
January - March 2026