Discomfort/pain due to periodontal and peri-implant probing with/without platform switching.

OBJECTIVE: To compare discomfort/pain following periodontal probing around teeth and peri-implant probing around implants with or without platform switching. METHODS: Two dentists recruited and examined 65 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral tooth. Only two types of implants were included: one with and one without platform switching. Periodontal and peri-implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth was measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing, patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed as angles between interproximal surfaces on radiographs. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (age 69; 63/76 years [median; lower/upper quartile]; 38 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of mean PPD and PAL (p < .05) clinical parameters (PPD, PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri-implant probing (VAS: 10; 0.75/16.25) caused significantly (p < .001) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (4; 0/10). Logistic regression analysis identified a larger difference between discomfort/pain for peri-implant and periodontal probing in the maxilla than the mandible (p = .003). Comparing discomfort/pain between implants maxilla (p = .006) and emergence profile (p = .015) were associated with discomfort/pain. Type of implant (with/without platform switching) had no significant effect on discomfort/pain. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Implant design with/without platform switching failed to have a significant effect on discomfort/pain.

Discomfort/pain due to periodontal and peri-implant probing: Implant type and age.

AIM: There is evidence that patients experience more discomfort/pain after peri-implant probing than periodontal probing. However, there are several plausible factors to additionally influence this observation: e.g., implant type, age, smoking. Thus, this study was designed to compare discomfort/pain after periodontal and peri-implant probing in different implant types. METHODS: Two dentists recruited and examined 80 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral natural tooth. Only two types of implants were included. Periodontal and peri-implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth were measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Eighty patients (median; lower/upper quartile: age 57; 47.5/65.5 years; 40 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of PPD and PAL at the deepest site as well as mean PPD (p < .05) clinical parameters (PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri-implant probing (VAS: 9.0; 5.0/17.0) caused significantly (p = .038) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (5.5; 2.0/13.5). This was confirmed by repeated measures analysis of variance adjusting for several factors (p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing.