File Download
 
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
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleBleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants
 
AuthorsGerber, JA1
Tan, WC1
Balmer, TE1
Salvi, GE1
Lang, NP1
 
Issue Date2009
 
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 1, p. 75-78 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x
 
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.
 
ISSN0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000262129300011
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).

 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorGerber, JA
 
dc.contributor.authorTan, WC
 
dc.contributor.authorBalmer, TE
 
dc.contributor.authorSalvi, GE
 
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-05-31T03:23:33Z
 
dc.date.available2010-05-31T03:23:33Z
 
dc.date.issued2009
 
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.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 1, p. 75-78 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x
 
dc.identifier.citeulike3846862
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x
 
dc.identifier.epage78
 
dc.identifier.hkuros165338
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000262129300011
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).

 
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
dc.identifier.issue1
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.pmid19126110
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-58149171598
 
dc.identifier.spage75
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/58085
 
dc.identifier.volume20
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects
 
dc.subject.meshDental Implants - adverse effects
 
dc.subject.meshDental Prophylaxis
 
dc.subject.meshHumans
 
dc.subject.meshLinear Models
 
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Index
 
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Pocket - diagnosis - etiology
 
dc.subject.meshPeriodontics - instrumentation
 
dc.subject.meshPressure
 
dc.subject.meshSensitivity and Specificity
 
dc.titleBleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Gerber, JA</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Tan, WC</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Balmer, TE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Salvi, GE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-05-31T03:23:33Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-05-31T03:23:33Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2009</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009, v. 20 n. 1, p. 75-78</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0905-7161</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/58085</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Objectives: 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. &#169; 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical Oral Implants Research</relation.ispartof>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Implants - adverse effects</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Dental Prophylaxis</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Humans</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Linear Models</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Periodontal Index</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Periodontal Pocket - diagnosis - etiology</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Periodontics - instrumentation</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Pressure</subject.mesh>
<subject.mesh>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject.mesh>
<title>Bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth in relation to probing pressure and mucosal health around oral implants</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0905-7161&amp;volume=20&amp;spage=75&amp;epage=78&amp;date=2009&amp;atitle=Bleeding+on+probing+and+pocket+probing+depth+in+relation+to+probing+pressure+and+mucosal+health+around+oral+implants</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01601.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>19126110</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-58149171598</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>165338</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-58149171598&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>20</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>1</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>75</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>78</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000262129300011</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>3846862</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. Prince Philip Dental Hospital