Evaluation of peri-implant perfusion in patients who underwent avascular augmentation or microvascular reconstruction using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry: a prospective comparative clinical study
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2025
A Novel Approach to Monitoring Graft Neovascularization in the Human Gingiva
Published on: January 12, 2019
Marie Sophie Katz1, Mark Ooms2, Philipp Winnand2
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. mkatz@ukaachen.de.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the peri-implant perfusion, such as oxygen saturation, the relative amount of hemoglobin, and blood flow, in implants placed in pristine bone and avascular and microvascular grafts using a non-invasive measurement method.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 58 patients with 241 implants were included. Among them, 106 implants were based in native bone (group I), 75 implants were inserted into avascular bone grafts (group II), and 60 implants were placed in microvascular bone grafts (group III). Gingival perfusion was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry (LDF-TS). Implants with signs of gingival inflammation were excluded to analyze healthy implant perfusion in different bony envelopes.
Results:
The mean values for oxygen saturation, relative hemoglobin levels, and blood flow did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.404, p = 0.081, and p = 0.291, respectively). There was no significant difference in perfusion between implants that were surrounded by mucosa and implants based within cutaneous transplants (p = 0.456; p = 0.628, and p = 0.091, respectively).
Conclusion:
No differences in perfusion were found between implants inserted into native bone and implants involving bone or soft tissue augmentation. However, implants based in avascular and microvascular transplants showed higher rates of peri-implant inflammation.
Clinical Relevance:
Peri-implant perfusion seems to be comparable for all implants after they heal, irrespective of their bony surroundings. Although perfusion does not differ significantly, other factors may make implants in avascular and microvascular transplants vulnerable to peri-implant inflammation.
