Probe Accuracy and Agreement and Patient Preferences in Peri‐Implant Probing Depth Assessment: A Cross‐Sectional Study
Magdalena Mayol, Kristina Bertl, Nikolaos Pandis, Andreas StavropoulosABSTRACT
Objectives
To record the accuracy and agreement of three types of probes (i.e., a common metal probe and two types of flexible probes) for peri‐implant probing depth (PD) assessment, including patient‐reported outcomes (PRO).
Methods
Fifty patients (85 implants) with an implant‐supported restoration were included. Peri‐implant PD was recorded with a metal, plastic, and electronic probe. Pain/discomfort and patient preference were registered. After removing the prosthetic restoration, the correct peri‐implant PD (cPD), the mucosal height (MH), and the PD measured from the implant level (iPD) were assessed.
Results
Good accuracy and agreement were noted for PD measurements with the metal and plastic probe. They differed in approximately 80% of the measurements by < 1.5 mm from cPD, and on average, an underestimation of 0.5 mm occurred. The accuracy of the metal probe was negatively influenced by a thick peri‐implant mucosal phenotype. A direct comparison of the metal and plastic probes showed perfect agreement in 68.7% of the cases. Patients reported significantly less pain/discomfort when the plastic probe was used compared to the metal probe. The electronic probe was unreliable and differed by ≥ 1.5 mm from cPD in 65% of the measurements.
Conclusions
While the electronic probe was unreliable, the metal and plastic probes were relatively accurate and comparable for assessing peri‐implant PD; the plastic probe caused less pain/discomfort. However, in approximately 1/5 of the measurements a ≥ 1.5 mm deviation from the correct value (cPD) may occur, and the accuracy of the metal probe appears negatively influenced by a thick peri‐implant mucosal phenotype.
Trial Registration
The protocol was registered at