purpose of this study is to survey clinicians' choice of peri-implant
instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants
as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied
as compared to that reported in current literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative
dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire
to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was
provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a
choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on
the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and
pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as
probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were
detected, Tukey's posthoc test was applied.
questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority
demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice.
There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to
instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and
mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider
groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature.
study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider
groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces
applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip
diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing
dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the
clinicians may be higher than advised.