Clinical oral implants research · 2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Peri-Implant Probing With or Without Prostheses in Detecting Peri-Implantitis.
Clinical StudyСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Minghua, Bao Siqi, Qian Yinjie, Qiu Chongsheng, Zhang Jianwei, Si Misi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of probing depth before (PPD-1) and following (PPD-2) removal of the prosthesis in identifying the presence of peri-implantitis and to assess the factors influencing peri-implant probing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing-related parameters in detecting peri-implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model.
RESULTS: PPD-2 was significantly higher than PPD-1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm (p < 0.0001). The maximum PPD-2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD-1 (p < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri-implantitis (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri-implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07004517.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing-related parameters in detecting peri-implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model.
RESULTS: PPD-2 was significantly higher than PPD-1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm (p < 0.0001). The maximum PPD-2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD-1 (p < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri-implantitis (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri-implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07004517.