Probing around implants and teeth with healthy or inflamed peri‐implant mucosa/gingiva

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain a better understanding of probing measurements around osseointegrated oral implants. A comparison was made of probe tip position around Astra Tech implants and teeth of eight cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) in conditions of i) healthy peri-implant mucosa/gingiva, ii) mild mucositis/gingivitis, iii) severe mucositis/gingivitis or iv) peri-implantitis/periodontitis. Histological sections of 128 probes that were attached to implants or teeth with surrounding tissues were prepared by the cutting-grinding technique. No systematic differences were identified in the clinical and histological estimates of the distance between the mucosal/gingival margin and the probe tip. The differences were mainly smaller than 0.5 mm, and in no case were they larger than 0.7 mm. For implants and teeth with healthy peri-implant mucosa/gingiva, the distance between the probe tip and the alveolar bone was similar and ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 mm (P = 0.97). However, the probe tip was closer to bone around implants than around teeth in conditions of mild mucositis/gingivitis (P = 0.034), severe mucositis/gingivitis (P < or = 0.0001) and peri-implantitis/periodontitis (P < or = 0.0001). Around implants with severe mucositis and peri-implantitis, the distance was generally smaller than 0.5 mm, whereas teeth with severe gingivitis and periodontitis showed distances that mainly ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 mm. In conclusion, the probing measurements around osseointegrated oral implants and teeth were different. Even mild marginal inflammation was associated with deeper probe penetration around implants in comparison to teeth.

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

“…Gallucci, Belser, Bernard and Magne (2004) found mesial and distal PD often ranging between 4 and 8 mm depending on how scalloped the mucosa is. Animal studies have shown that conditions of mild inflammation already yield deeper pockets around implants compared to teeth and this does not necessarily coincide with actual bone loss (Schou et al., 2002). A multilevel analysis performed in a group of 52 patients with screw‐retained restorations on 92 implants revealed that deeper PD is associated with higher tendency to bleed.…”

Reliability of periodontal diagnostic methods in the assessment of periimplant health: A comparison of the correlations amongst some clinical parameters

“…Çalışmamızda standart kuvvet uygulanarak yapılan ölçümler arasında oluşan farkın, implant çevresi mukozanın sondalama ile oluşabilecek delinmelere karşı daha dirençsiz olması ile açık-lanabilir 19 . Bu dirençsizliğin ana nedenlerinden biri ise alveol kemik kreti üstü bağ dokusundaki kollagen liflerin implant yüzeyine paralel konumlanması 19,23,24 olabilir. Yumuşak dokunun direnci implant çevresi mukoza ve implant yü-zeyi arasındaki bağlantının pozisyonu ve organizasyonundan da etkilenmektedir.…”

“…Yumuşak dokunun direnci implant çevresi mukoza ve implant yü-zeyi arasındaki bağlantının pozisyonu ve organizasyonundan da etkilenmektedir. 19,23,24 Çalışmamızda, implant grubunda SK görünen bölge sayısı doğal dişler grubuna oranla daha fazla bulunmuştur. Klinik ölçümlerde standart kuvvet uygulandığı için SK'nin travmatik neden ile oluşmadığı düşünülmektedir.…”

“…7,9,11,23 . İmplant çevresi yumuşak dokularda oluşan enflamasyon uzun dönem implant kayıp-larında önemli bir etiyolojik faktördür.…”

Comparison of a Hydroxyapatite-Coated and an Anodic Oxidized Titanium Implant for Experimentally Induced Peri-Implantitis: Macroscopic and Novel Radiographic Evaluations in a Canine Model

“…Serino et al reported that measurements of peri-implantitis associated with prosthetic reconstruction implants generated in situ should be interpreted cautiously with regard to their ability to determine the severity of bone loss at implants 31) . Qualitatively, radiographic evaluation revealed that PD tended to be proportional to MBL, because the probe tip penetrated to a position closer to the alveolar bone crest in sites with peri-implant disease 32,33) . However, no relationship existed between macroscopic and radiographic evaluations in this experiment, because the bone loss appeared around the deep site of the implant, and was not detectable using a periodontal probe.…”