Diagnostic Accuracy of Peri‐Implant Probing With or Without Prostheses in Detecting Peri‐Implantitis

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of probing depth before (PPD-1) and following (PPD-2) removal of the prosthesis in identifying the presence of peri-implantitis and to assess the factors influencing peri-implant probing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing-related parameters in detecting peri-implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: PPD-2 was significantly higher than PPD-1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm (p < 0.0001). The maximum PPD-2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD-1 (p < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri-implantitis (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri-implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT07004517.