Next Article in Journal
LRRTM4 and PCSK5 Genetic Polymorphisms as Markers for Cognitive Impairment in A Hypotensive Aging Population: A Genome-Wide Association Study in Taiwan
Next Article in Special Issue
Factors Influencing Early Marginal Bone Loss around Dental Implants Positioned Subcrestally: A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Prevalence of Asthma and COPD and Blood Eosinophil Count in a Middle-Aged Belgian Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prediction of Titanium Implant Success by Analysis of microRNA Expression in Peri-Implant Tissue. A 5-Year Follow-Up Study
Open AccessReview

Is Peri-Implant Probing Causing Over-Diagnosis and Over-Treatment of Dental Implants?

by Pierluigi Coli 1 and Lars Sennerby 1,2,*
Edinburgh Dental Specialists, Edinburgh EH2 4BA, UK
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Gothenburg, 413 90 Gothenburg, Sweden
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(8), 1123;
Received: 16 June 2019 / Revised: 19 July 2019 / Accepted: 25 July 2019 / Published: 29 July 2019
Pocket probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) measurements are useful indices for the assessment of periodontal conditions. The same periodontal indices are commonly recommended to evaluate the dental implant/tissue interface to identify sites with mucositis and peri-implantitis, which, if not treated, are anticipated to lead to implant failure. The aim of the present narrative review is to discuss the available literature on the effectiveness of probing at dental implants for identification of peri-implant pathology. There is substantial clinical evidence that PPD and BOP measurements are very poor indices of peri-implant tissue conditions and are questionable surrogate endpoints for implant failure. On the contrary, the literature suggests that frequent disturbance of the soft tissue barrier at implants may instead induce inflammation and bone resorption. Moreover, over-diagnosis and subsequent unnecessary treatment may lead to iatrogenic damage to the implant-tissue interface. Despite this, the recommendations from recent consensus meetings are still promoting the use of probing at dental implants. For evaluation of implants, for instance at annual check-ups, the present authors recommend a clinical examination that includes (i) a visual inspection of the peri-implant tissues for the assessment of oral hygiene and the detection of potential redness, swelling, (ii) palpation of the peri-implant tissues for assessment of the potential presence of swelling, bleeding, suppuration. In addition, (iii) radiography is recommended for the assessment of crestal bone level for comparison with previous radiographs to evaluate potential progressive bone loss even if there is a need for more scientific evidence of the true value of the first two clinical testing modes. View Full-Text
Keywords: dental implants; mucositis; peri-implantitis; diagnosis; over-treatment; iatrogenic damage dental implants; mucositis; peri-implantitis; diagnosis; over-treatment; iatrogenic damage
MDPI and ACS Style

Coli, P.; Sennerby, L. Is Peri-Implant Probing Causing Over-Diagnosis and Over-Treatment of Dental Implants? J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1123.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop