AbstractObjectiveMeasurement of the periodontal soft tissue dimension is crucial for clinical decision‐making and aesthetic prognosis. However, the effectiveness of different measuring methods remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of two non‐invasive methods (namely CBCT and ultrasound) for gingival thickness measurement at different tooth positions.Materials and methodsA systematic search was performed using PubMed (including Medline), PubMed Central, OVID, Cochrane Library, LILACS and OpenGrey. Studies focusing on comparisons between CBCT, ultrasound and direct transgingival probing were included. The means, SDs and correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager and R software.ResultsTwelve studies were selected. No significant difference was found between CBCT measurement and transgingival probing in the anterior and posterior dentition, and a moderate correlation was observed between these two methods (r = 0.41). A weak correlation was found between ultrasound measurement and transgingival probing (r = 0.32), and a slight but statistically significant difference was found when comparing ultrasonic devices and transgingival probing in the posterior area.ConclusionCBCT can be considered a relatively reliable method for gingival thickness measurement in both the anterior and posterior areas compared with direct probing. Ultrasonic devices provide limited accuracy in the posterior area but are relatively comparable with direct clinical assessments in the anterior area.Clinical significanceMeasurement location may affect the diagnostic accuracy and repeatability of gingival thickness measurements. Appropriate method selection in different clinical scenarios is crucial to aesthetic outcome prediction and decision‐making.