ABSTRACT Objectives The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of probing depth before (PPD‐1) and following (PPD‐2) removal of the prosthesis in identifying the presence of peri‐implantitis and to assess the factors influencing peri‐implant probing. Materials and Methods A total of 61 patients were included in the study, with 83 implants analyzed. Peri‐implantitis was diagnosed based on bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP) with marginal bone loss (MBL). Using radiographs, the following features were determined: MBL, emergence angle (EA), and emergence profile (EP). Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated to assess the diagnostic ability of probing‐related parameters in detecting peri‐implantitis. Associations between PPD differences and risk factors were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model. Results PPD‐2 was significantly higher than PPD‐1, with a mean difference of 0.887 mm ( p < 0.0001). The maximum PPD‐2 showed higher diagnostic accuracy than the maximum PPD‐1 ( p < 0.05). When combining PPD with BoP/SoP, the most accurate combinations with and without prostheses showed no significant difference in AUROC (0.709 vs. 0.753). A statistically higher PPD difference was observed in concave EP, anterior implants, and peri‐implantitis ( p < 0.01). Conclusions The presence of prostheses significantly influenced peri‐implant probing depth, and probing depth without prostheses yielded higher diagnostic accuracy for peri‐implantitis. Peri‐implantitis, a concave restorative profile, and anterior implants may further contribute to the increased probing depth differences. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT07004517
Xu et al. (Wed,) studied this question.