Discomfort/pain due to peri‐implant probing at titanium and zirconium implants: A cross‐sectional study

Objective This study was designed to compare discomfort/pain after periodontal and peri‐implant probing in patients with titanium compared with zirconium implants. Methods One examiner recruited and examined 70 patients, each of whom had a dental implant with a contralateral tooth; 37 patients had titanium implants of various types and 33 patients had zirconium implants; one implant was analyzed for each patient. Periodontal and peri‐implant probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were assessed. Immediately after probing, patients rated their discomfort/pain with a visual analog scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed on periapical radiographs of the implants. Results Seventy patients with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 42–65 years), including 43 females and 16 current smokers, were examined. The mean PPD and bleeding on probing (BOP) were higher around implants than around teeth ( p < .001). CAL and suppuration were well‐balanced between implants and teeth. Peri‐implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing [median VAS score: 12.5 (IQR 4–22) vs. 9 (2–15); p < .001]. Logistic regression revealed that discomfort/pain after peri‐implant probing was less intense in patients who had taken analgesic medication ( p = .021) and around titanium implants ( p = .037). Conclusions Peri‐implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Patients who had taken analgesic medication experienced less discomfort and pain with peri‐implant probing than those who had not; furthermore, titanium implants were associated with less pain than zirconium implants.