Premium
Reliability of findings around healthy implants in association with oral hygiene measures: a clinical, microbiological, and immunological follow‐up in edentulous patients
Author(s) -
Lachmann Stefan,
KimmerleMüller Evi,
Axmann Detlef,
GomezRoman German,
Weber Heiner,
Haas Robert
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01399.x
Subject(s) - medicine , repeatability , oral hygiene , dentistry , bleeding on probing , reproducibility , implant , reliability (semiconductor) , peri implantitis , orthodontics , periodontitis , surgery , mathematics , statistics , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Objectives: To assess the performance of clinical, microbiological, and immunological diagnosis of peri‐implant health and the influence of professional hygiene measures on them. Material and methods: Twenty‐one edentulous patients with oral implants supporting a lower overdenture were followed up over 3 months beginning 1 week before their annual recall visit. Hygiene scores, probing depth, bleeding on probing (BOP), implant stability, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume, sulcular interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) concentrations, and relative concentrations of five bacterial species (polymerase chain reaction) were investigated. Measurement variation was assessed as a function of (a) intra‐ and (b) inter‐examiner reliability, (c) inter‐implant variation in each patient, (d) time, and (e) effect of hygiene measures by accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, and visualization with the Bland and Altman Plot. Results: Measurement means and accuracy (in parentheses) were as follows: GCF volume 1.5 μl (1.5), Interleukin‐1β 8 ng/ml (26), PGE2 63 ng/ml (185), bacteria sum score 0.2 (0.7), plaque score 1 (1), BOP score 0 (1), Periotest value −4 (3), resonance frequency analysis ISQ 66 (11), and pocket probing depth 2.3 mm (0.7). No finding exhibited any statistically significant measurement variation as explained by accuracy, repeatability, or reproducibility. Bland and Altman Plots revealed insufficient agreement for replicated BOP assessments. A short post‐treatment reduction in plaque and BOP scores was visually apparent. Still, professional oral hygiene measures exerted no sustained influence on the clinical and biochemical appearance of the peri‐implant tissues. Conclusion: All findings except BOP showed statistically acceptable repeatability and moderate vulnerability to influences present ‘chairside’ in clinical practice.