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

File Download Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
Supplementary
  • 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
2011 Impact Factor: 2.514
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.117
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 Field
Value
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
2011 Impact Factor: 2.514
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.117
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
Author Affiliations
  1. Prince Philip Dental Hospital