Skip to main content


Log in

Assessment of palatal mucosal thickness and location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



This study aimed to measure the palatal mucosal thickness and examine the location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT).


In this study, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of the maxillary posterior region of 120 subjects were evaluated. The palatal mucosal thickness (PMT), palatal width and depth, and location of the greater palatine foramen (GPF) were determined on CBCT. The differences in the palatal mucosal thickness according to gender and palatal width/palatal depth were analyzed. The location of the GPF related to the maxillary molars was noted.


The mean palatal mucosal thicknesses from the canine to the second molar teeth were 3.66, 3.90, 4.06, 3.76, and 3.92 mm, respectively. The mean PMT at the second premolar was statistically thicker than at other regions (p < 0,001). There was no relationship between PMT and gender. However, the palatal depth and width of the males were greater than females. (p = 0.004 and p = 0.014, respectively) PMT in the low palatal vault group had statistically higher compared to the high palatal vault group. (p = 0.023) Greater palatine foramen was mostly observed between second and third molar teeth. (48%).


According to our results, first and second premolar regions can be preferable in soft tissue grafting procedures for safe and successful treatment outcomes. The measurement of the thickness of the palatal mucosa and the evaluation of the greater palatine foramen location before the surgical procedures are essential steps to harvest from the ideal donor site and to achieve optimal surgical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.


  1. Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent. 2008;36(9):659–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouchard P, Malet J, Borghetti A. Decision-making in aesthetics: root coverage revisited. Periodontol. 2001;27(1):97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller PD Jr. Root coverage using the free soft tissue autograft following citric acid application III. A successful and predictable procedure in areas of deep-wide recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1985;5(2):14–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hangorsky U, Bissada NF. Clinical assessment of free gingival graft effectiveness on the maintenance of periodontal health. J Periodontol. 1980;51(5):274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tözüm TF, Dini FM. Treatment of adjacent gingival recessions with subepithelial connective tissue grafts and the modified tunnel technique. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(1):7–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, McGuire MK, Rasperini G, Feinberg SE, Wang HL, et al. Autogenous soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic surgical reconstruction. J Periodontol. 2020;91(1):9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zuhr O, Bäumer D, Hürzeler M. The addition of soft tissue replacement grafts in plastic periodontal and implant surgery: critical elements in design and execution. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41(Suppl 1):S123–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu SK, Lee BH, Lee MH, Cho KH, Kim DK, Kim HJ. Histomorphometric analysis of the palatal mucosa associated with periodontal plastic surgery on cadavers. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(6):463–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mörmann W, Schaer F, Firestone AR. The Relationship between success of free gingival grafts and transplant thickness: revascularization and shrinkage—a one year clinical study. J Periodontol. 1981;52(2):74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baker P. The management of gingival recession. Dent Update. 2002;29(3):114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Song J-E, Um Y-J, Kim C-S, Choi S-H, Cho K-S, Kim C-K, et al. Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa: the use of computerized tomography. J Periodontol. 2008;79(3):406–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chackartchi T, Romanos GE, Sculean A. Soft tissue-related complications and management around dental implants. Periodontol. 2019;81(1):124–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffin TJ, Cheung WS, Zavras AI, Damoulis PD. Postoperative complications following gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontol. 2006;77(12):2070–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klosek SK, Rungruang T. Anatomical study of the greater palatine artery and related structures of the palatal vault: considerations for palate as the subepithelial connective tissue graft donor site. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009;31(4):245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Ravidà A, Oh TJ, Wang HL. What Is the safety zone for palatal soft tissue graft harvesting based on the locations of the greater palatine artery and foramen? a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(2):271.e1-271.e9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zucchelli G, De SM. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands. J Periodontol. 2000;71(9):1506–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Studer SP, Allen EP, Rees TC, Kouba A. The thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. J Periodontol. 1997;68(2):145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wara-Aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol. 2001;72(10):1407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eger T, Muller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(9):839–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL, Faber J, Bezerra ACB. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol. 2009;36(7):564–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilgenfeld T, Kästel T, Heil A, Rammelsberg P, Heiland S, Bendszus M, et al. High-resolution dental magnetic resonance imaging for planning palatal graft surgery—a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(4):462–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T. Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: A methodologic study. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 1999;88(2):248–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heil A, Schwindling FS, Jelinek C, Fischer M, Prager M, Gonzalez EL, et al. Determination of the palatal masticatory mucosa thickness by dental MRi: a prospective study analysing age and gender effects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2018;47(2):20170282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Loubele M, Schutyser F, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. State-of-the-art on cone beam CT imaging for preoperative planning of implant placement. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Suomalainen A, Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E, Robinson S. Dentomaxillofacial imaging with panoramic views and cone beam CT. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(1):1–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Januário AL, Barriviera M, Duarte WR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: a novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(6):366–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ogawa M, Katagiri S, Koyanagi T, Maekawa S, Shiba T, Ohsugi Y, et al. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in evaluation of palatal mucosa thickness. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(4):479–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gupta P, Jan SM, Behal R, Mir RA, Shafi M. Accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in determining the thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2015;19(4):396–400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Gargiulo AW, Wentz FM, Orban B. Dimensions and relations of the dentogingival junction in humans. J Periodontol. 1961;32(3):261–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yilmaz HG, Boke F, Ayali A. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the soft tissue thickness and greater palatine foramen location in the palate. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(5):458–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(6):431–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Reiser GM, Bruno JF, Mahan PE, Larkin LH. The subepithelial connective tissue graft palatal donor site: anatomic considerations for surgeons. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1996;16(2):130–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Said KN, Khalid ASA, Fathima I, Farook F. Anatomic factors influencing dimensions of soft tissue graft from the hard palate a clinical study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020;6(4):462–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Stipetic J, Hrala Z, Celebic A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity dependent on gender and body mass index. Coll Antropol. 2005;29:243–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Karadag I, Yilmaz HG. Palatal mucosa thickness and palatal neurovascular bundle position evaluation by cone-beam computed tomography-retrospective study on relationships with palatal vault anatomy. PeerJ. 2021;9: e12699.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hormdee D, Yamsuk T, Sutthiprapaporn P. Palatal soft tissue thickness on maxillary posterior teeth and its relation to palatal vault angle measured by cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:8844236.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ikuta CRS, Cardoso CL, Ferreira O, Lauris JRP, Souza PHC, Rubira-Bullen IRF. Position of the greater palatine foramen: an anatomical study through cone beam computed tomography images. Surg Radiol Anat. 2013;35(9):837–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang TM, Kuo KJ, Shih C, Ho LL, Liu JC. Assessment of the relative locations of the greater palatine foramen in adult chinese skulls. Cells Tissues Organs. 1988;132(3):182–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fu J-H, Hasso DG, Yeh C-Y, Leong DJM, Chan H-L, Wang H-L. The accuracy of identifying the greater palatine neurovascular bundle: a cadaver study. J Periodontol. 2011;82:1000–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gibelli D, Borlando A, Dolci C, Pucciarelli V, Cattaneo C, Sforza C. Anatomical characteristics of greater palatine foramen: a novel point of view. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017;39:1359–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beetge MM, Todorovic VS, Oettlé A, Hoffman J, Van Zyl AW. A micro-ct study of the greater palatine foramen in human skulls. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The study was supported by Baskent University Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors have made substantial contributions to data collection, conception and design, acquisition of data, interpretation of data and initial and final drafting of the manuscript and were accountable for all aspects of the work. BFO, MNNY, Eİ and İNK contributed to data analyses and critically revised the manuscript. HK contributed to data collection and prepared figures. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elif Inonu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by Baskent University Institutional Review Board (Project no: D-KA21/08). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oduncuoğlu, B.F., Karslioğlu, H., Karasu, I.N. et al. Assessment of palatal mucosal thickness and location of the greater palatine foramen using cone-beam computed tomography: a retrospective study. Oral Radiol 39, 784–791 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: