File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants

TitleBleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants
Authors
Issue Date2009
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 1, p. 75-78 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To assess the bleeding on probing (BOP) tendency and periodontal probe penetration when applying various probing forces at implant sites in patients with a high standard of oral hygiene with well-maintained peri-implant tissues. Material and methods: Seventeen healthy patients with excellent oral hygiene in a maintenance program after having been treated for periodontitis or gingivitis were recruited. Missing teeth had been replaced using oral implants. The BOP and probing depth (PPD) were assessed at the mid-buccal, mid-oral, mesial and distal aspects of the buccal surfaces of each implant. Moreover, contralateral teeth were designated and assessed for BOP and PPD in the same locations and at the same observation visits. At each visit, implants and contralateral teeth were randomly assigned to one of the standardized probing forces (0.15 or 0.25 N). The second probing force was applied at the repetition of the examination 7 days later. Results: Increasing the probing pressure by 0.1 N from 0.15 N resulted in an increase of BOP percentage by 13.7% and 6.6% for implants and contralateral teeth, respectively. There appeared to be a significant difference of the mean BOP percentage at implant and tooth sites when a probing pressure of 0.25 N was applied. A significantly deeper mean PPD at implant sites compared with tooth sites was found irrespective of the probing pressure applied. Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrated that 0.15 N might represent the threshold pressure to be applied to avoid false positive BOP readings around oral implants. Hence, probing around implants demonstrated a higher sensitivity compared with probing around teeth. © 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/58085
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
Clinical Research Foundation (CRF)
Funding Information:

This study has been supported by the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the promotion of Oral Health, University of Berne, Switzerland. Dr Wah Ching Tan was an ITI Scholar for the year 2006/2007 (ITI Foundation, Basel, Switzerland; Educational Grant).

References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGerber, JAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTan, WCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBalmer, TEen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSalvi, GEen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-05-31T03:23:33Z-
dc.date.available2010-05-31T03:23:33Z-
dc.date.issued2009en_HK
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 1, p. 75-78en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/58085-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To assess the bleeding on probing (BOP) tendency and periodontal probe penetration when applying various probing forces at implant sites in patients with a high standard of oral hygiene with well-maintained peri-implant tissues. Material and methods: Seventeen healthy patients with excellent oral hygiene in a maintenance program after having been treated for periodontitis or gingivitis were recruited. Missing teeth had been replaced using oral implants. The BOP and probing depth (PPD) were assessed at the mid-buccal, mid-oral, mesial and distal aspects of the buccal surfaces of each implant. Moreover, contralateral teeth were designated and assessed for BOP and PPD in the same locations and at the same observation visits. At each visit, implants and contralateral teeth were randomly assigned to one of the standardized probing forces (0.15 or 0.25 N). The second probing force was applied at the repetition of the examination 7 days later. Results: Increasing the probing pressure by 0.1 N from 0.15 N resulted in an increase of BOP percentage by 13.7% and 6.6% for implants and contralateral teeth, respectively. There appeared to be a significant difference of the mean BOP percentage at implant and tooth sites when a probing pressure of 0.25 N was applied. A significantly deeper mean PPD at implant sites compared with tooth sites was found irrespective of the probing pressure applied. Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrated that 0.15 N might represent the threshold pressure to be applied to avoid false positive BOP readings around oral implants. Hence, probing around implants demonstrated a higher sensitivity compared with probing around teeth. © 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effectsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Implants - adverse effectsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Prophylaxisen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshLinear Modelsen_HK
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Indexen_HK
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Pocket - diagnosis - etiologyen_HK
dc.subject.meshPeriodontics - instrumentationen_HK
dc.subject.meshPressureen_HK
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificityen_HK
dc.titleBleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implantsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0905-7161&volume=20&spage=75&epage=78&date=2009&atitle=Bleeding+on+probing+and+pocket+probing+depth+in+relation+to+probing+pressure+and+mucosal+health+around+oral+implantsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid19126110-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-58149171598en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros165338en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-58149171598&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume20en_HK
dc.identifier.issue1en_HK
dc.identifier.spage75en_HK
dc.identifier.epage78en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000262129300011-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridGerber, JA=12787506800en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTan, WC=15052310400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBalmer, TE=36818610400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSalvi, GE=35600695300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike3846862-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats