Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 11, 2026

Experimental Model of Ligature-Induced Peri-Implantitis in Mice
Published on: May 17, 2024
Diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters to monitor peri-implant conditions: A matched case-control study
Alberto Monje1,2,3, Jordi Caballé-Serrano4, Jose Nart3
1Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI.
Background:
The aim of this case-control study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the standard clinical parameters in diagnosing healthy peri-implant tissues, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.
Methods:
A case-control study was designed to compare the clinical parameters used in the diagnosis of peri-implant diseases such as: probingdepth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), mucosal redness (MR), suppuration (SUP), and plaque index (PI). Furthermore, the influence of patient- (sex, age) and implant-related variables (implant neck configuration, time in function after loading) were evaluated to investigate the association with the clinical findings. The inferential analysis consisted of estimation by generalized estimating equations (GEE) of multilevel logistic regression models.
Results:
In total, 1,572 sites were evaluated around 262 implants from 141 patients. Sites with implant mucositis showed significant levels of BOP (OR = 3.56), MR (OR = 7.66) and PD (OR = 1.48) compared to healthy sites. The specificity was 90.3% while the sensitivity was only 43.6%. Likewise, sites exhibiting peri-implantitis showed significant levels of BOP (OR = 2.32), MR (OR = 7.21), PD (OR = 2.43) and SUP (OR = 6.81) compared to healthy sites. Again, the multiple logistic regressions showed high specificity (92.1%) but modest sensitivity (52.5%). PD was the only diagnostic marker displaying significance comparing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis sites (OR = 1.76). Moreover, tissue-level compared to bone-level implants were less associated with SUP+ (OR = 0.20), and PI (OR = 0.36) and demonstrated statistical significance. In addition, age, sex, and function time significantly influenced the tested clinical parameters.
Conclusions:
The diagnosis of peri-implant diseases cannot rely solely upon individual clinical parameters but rather require a combination of criteria. The clinical parameters, particularly probing depth, might accurately discern between diagnoses among peri-implant conditions. Nevertheless, the specificity of the clinical parameters surpasses the sensitivity in the detection of peri-implant diseases, validating its potential use as a diagnostic tool.
More Related Videos
06:06Adjunctive Diode Laser Therapy and Probiotic Lactobacillus Therapy in the Treatment of Periodontitis and Peri-Implant Disease
Published on: May 9, 2022
07:51Evaluation of Capnography Sampling Line Compatibility and Accuracy when Used with a Portable Capnography Monitor
Published on: September 29, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Hypertension III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Rheumatic Heart Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
Myocarditis II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests