Probe Accuracy and Agreement and Patient Preferences in Peri‐Implant Probing Depth Assessment: A Cross‐Sectional Study

OBJECTIVES: To record the accuracy and agreement of three types of probes (i.e., a common metal probe and two types of flexible probes) for peri-implant probing depth (PD) assessment, including patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: Fifty patients (85 implants) with an implant-supported restoration were included. Peri-implant PD was recorded with a metal, plastic, and electronic probe. Pain/discomfort and patient preference were registered. After removing the prosthetic restoration, the correct peri-implant PD (cPD), the mucosal height (MH), and the PD measured from the implant level (iPD) were assessed. RESULTS: Good accuracy and agreement were noted for PD measurements with the metal and plastic probe. They differed in approximately 80% of the measurements by < 1.5 mm from cPD, and on average, an underestimation of 0.5 mm occurred. The accuracy of the metal probe was negatively influenced by a thick peri-implant mucosal phenotype. A direct comparison of the metal and plastic probes showed perfect agreement in 68.7% of the cases. Patients reported significantly less pain/discomfort when the plastic probe was used compared to the metal probe. The electronic probe was unreliable and differed by ≥ 1.5 mm from cPD in 65% of the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: While the electronic probe was unreliable, the metal and plastic probes were relatively accurate and comparable for assessing peri-implant PD; the plastic probe caused less pain/discomfort. However, in approximately 1/5 of the measurements a ≥ 1.5 mm deviation from the correct value (cPD) may occur, and the accuracy of the metal probe appears negatively influenced by a thick peri-implant mucosal phenotype. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05332327).