What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of visual assessment and horizontal transmucosal probing in classifying peri-implant mucosal thickness.

February 8, 2026Open Access

Diagnostic accuracy of transmucosal probe visualization for peri-implant mucosal phenotype assessment: A cross-sectional study.

Puntos clave

The research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of visual assessment and horizontal transmucosal probing in classifying peri-implant mucosal thickness.
Screened adult subjects with implant-supported prostheses.
Used a standard periodontal probe for visual assessment (VAT).
Measured facial mucosal thickness (FMT) with horizontal transmucosal probing (HTP).
Evaluated diagnostic accuracy metrics including sensitivity and specificity at various thickness thresholds.
At a 2 mm FMT threshold, 66.2% of sites were thick and 33.8% thin.
VAT demonstrated a sensitivity of 12.6% and specificity of 96.2% at the 2 mm threshold.
At 1 mm, sensitivity improved to 41%, but specificity remained high at 96%.
Overall, VAT proved unreliable in distinguishing thin phenotypes compared to HTP.

Resumen

Background This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual assessment of mucosal transparency using a standard periodontal probe (VAT) to differentiate between thin and thick peri-implant mucosal phenotypes, compared to horizontal transmucosal probing (HTP). A secondary objective was to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) threshold values for peri-implant mucosa phenotype classification.Methods Adult subjects with at least one non-molar single implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) were screened. To evaluate VAT, a standard periodontal probe was inserted through the peri-implant sulcus on the midfacial aspect. FMT was measured via HTP using an endodontic spreader.Results A total of 247 subjects and 281 ISPs constituted the study population. Setting a 2 mm threshold, 66.2% of sites were classified as thick and 33.8% as thin. Compared to HTP, VAT demonstrated a sensitivity (SE) of 12.6%, a specificity (SP) of 96.2%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 63%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 66%. At the 1.5 mm threshold, 86.1% of sites were thick and 13.9% thin, with 25.6% SE, 96.3% SP, 53% PPV, and 89% NPV. At the 1 mm threshold, 92.2% of sites were thick and 7.8% thin, with 41% SE, 96% SP, 47% PPV, and 95% NPV. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the best-fitting balance for PPV (58%) and NPV (91%) at an FMT of 1.25 mm.Conclusions Regardless of the FMT threshold applied, VAT demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy, in particular for thin phenotypes, proving unreliable for the dichotomic characterization of thin and thick peri-implant mucosal phenotypes. This study was approved by the ethical committee for clinical studies in the canton of Bern, Switzerland (KEK-BE-No. 2023-01962).This study primarily aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two methods to characterize the thickness of the peri‐implant mucosa: a visual assessment of mucosal transparency of a standard periodontal probe inserted into the peri‐implant sulcus (VAT) and horizontal transmucosal probing using a puncturing instrument (HTP). Adult subjects with at least one implant‐supported prosthesis were included. Regardless of the facial mucosal thickness threshold (2, 1.5, or 1 mm), VAT exhibited limited reliability in accurately identifying thin and thick mucosal phenotypes compared to HTP.

Leer artículo completoexternamente

Preguntar a la IA

Me gusta

Guardar

Ver artículo completo