Premium
Is the personalized approach the key to improve clinical diagnosis of peri‐implant conditions? The role of bone markers
Author(s) -
Rakic Mia,
Monje Alberto,
Radovanovic Sandro,
PetkovicCurcin Aleksandra,
Vojvodic Danilo,
Tatic Zoran
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1002/jper.19-0283
Subject(s) - medicine , bleeding on probing , osteoprotegerin , rankl , peri implantitis , implant , dentistry , diagnostic accuracy , bone resorption , periodontitis , surgery , activator (genetics) , receptor
Background Study objectives were 1) to estimate diagnostic capacity of clinical parameters, receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa‐B (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) to diagnose healthy peri‐implant condition (HI), peri‐implant mucositis (PIM) and peri‐implantitis (PIMP) by assessing respective diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic ranges 2) to develop personalized diagnostic model (PDM) for implant monitoring. Methods Split‐mouth study included 126 patients and 252 implants (HI = 126, PIM = 57, and PIMP = 69). RANKL and OPG concentrations were estimated in peri‐implant crevicular fluid using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay method and assessed with clinical parameters using routine statistics, while the diagnostic capacity of individual parameters and overall clinical diagnosis were estimated using classifying algorithms. PDM was developed using decision trees. Results Bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index, and probing depth (PD) were confirmed reliable discriminants between peri‐implant health and disease, while increase in PD (PD > 4 mm) and suppuration were good discriminants amongst PIM/PIMP. Bone turnover markers (BTMs) demonstrated presence of bone resorption in PIM; between comparable diagnostic ranges PIM/PIMP, PIMP was clinically distinguished from PIM in about 60% of patients while 40% remained diagnosed as false negatives. PDM demonstrated highest diagnostic capacity (accuracy: 96.27%, sensitivity: 95.00%, specificity: 100%) and defined HI: BOP ≤0.25%; PIM: BOP >0.25%, PD ≤4.5 mm; PIMP: BOP >0.25%, PD >4.5 mm and RANKL ≤19.9 pg/site; PIM: BOP >0.25%, PD >4.5 mm, and RANKL >19.9 pg/site. Conclusions BTMs demonstrated capacity to substantially improve clinical diagnosis of peri‐implant conditions. Considering lack of difference in BTMs between PIM/PIMP and cluster of PIM with exceeding BTMs, a more refined definition of peri‐implant conditions according to biological characteristics is required for further BTMs validation and appropriate PIMP management.