Diagnostic methods/parameters to monitor peri‐implant conditions

Abstract

The diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters, including visual inspection and probing to monitor peri‐implant conditions, has been regarded with skepticism. Scientific evidence pointed out that primary diagnostic tools (chairside) seem to be highly specific, while their sensitivity is lower compared with their use in monitoring periodontal stability. Nonetheless, given the association between pocket depth at teeth and implant sites and the aerobic/anaerobic nature of the microbiome, it seems plausible for pocket probing depth to be indicative of disease progression or tissue stability. In addition, understanding the inflammatory nature of peri‐implant diseases, it seems reasonable to advocate that bleeding, erythema, ulceration, and suppuration might be reliable indicators of pathology. Nevertheless, single spots of bleeding on probing may not reflect peri‐implant disease, since implants are prone to exhibit bleeding related to probing force. On the other side, bleeding in smokers lacks sensitivity owing to the decreased angiogenic activity. Hence, the use of dichotomous scales on bleeding in the general population, in contrast to indices that feature profuseness and time after probing, might lead to false positive diagnoses. The definitive distinction between peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis, though, relies upon the radiographic evidence of progressive bone loss that can be assessed by means of two‐ and three‐dimensional methods. Accordingly, the objective of this review is to evaluate the existing clinical and radiographic parameters/methods to monitor peri‐implant conditions.