Abstract
Background:Researchers have recently drawn attention to the analysis of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) for the implementation of the diagnosis of periodontal and peri-implant disease. Nevertheless, the measurements of volume and biomarkers concentration can be critically biased when data collected from studies with parallel group design are compared, given the technical difficulties, methodological variables, as well as the variability of crevicular fluid characteristics among different individuals.Objective:The aim of the present study was to assess the GCF and PISF volumes in healthy and diseased sites belonging to the same patient.Method:Ten patients presenting a periodontally healthy tooth, a tooth with periodontitis, an implant with healthy peri-implant tissues and an implant with peri-implantitis were enrolled. Samples of GCF and PISF were collected from each site of interest and their volume measured with a Periotron 8000 device. Non-parametric statistical analysis was performed to test the significance of the differences in GCF and PISF volumes between i) sites of teeth and dental implants with the same condition of health or disease and ii) healthy and diseased sites of both teeth and dental implants subgroups. The correlation between probing pocket depth (PPD) and fluid production was also tested (p<0.05).Results:Healthy periodontal and peri-implant tissues produced comparable amounts of fluid that was significantly lower than in diseased sites (p<0.05). In the presence of diagnosed disease, the volumes of GCF and PISF were similar, too. The correlation between PPD and fluid production was significant only in healthy sites (PPD/GCF, ρ=0.890, p<0.001; PPD/PISF, ρ=0.810; p<0.005).Conclusion: The periodontal and peri-implant tissues behaved similarly in terms of fluid production in condition of both health and active disease.
Highlights
Gingivitis and periodontitis are some of the most widespread diseases among the worldwide populations of almost all ages and they are characterized by inflammation of the tissues surrounding the tooth as a result of infection by a mix of periodontal pathogenic bacteria [1]
Dental implants are used to replace one or more teeth and have revolutionized the rehabilitation of partially and totally edentulous patients. They are a versatile, predictable and valid long-term treatment option [3], but are not immune from clinical complications due, above all, to an inflammation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues [3]. These lesions can appear in two forms, mucositis and peri-implantitis, which are both inflammatory reactions of the periimplant tissues that correspond to the same pathological conditions of the periodontum, namely gingivitis and periodontitis [4]
The mean values of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) volumes are summarized in Fig. (1)
Summary
Gingivitis and periodontitis are some of the most widespread diseases among the worldwide populations of almost all ages and they are characterized by inflammation of the tissues surrounding the tooth as a result of infection by a mix of periodontal pathogenic bacteria [1]. Dental implants are used to replace one or more teeth and have revolutionized the rehabilitation of partially and totally edentulous patients They are a versatile, predictable and valid long-term treatment option [3], but are not immune from clinical complications due, above all, to an inflammation of peri-implant soft and hard tissues [3]. Peri-implantitis has been described as inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding the implant associated with the evidence of progressive bone loss that exceeds the normal bone remodelling process [5] These pathological processes are capable of causing substantial damage to the supporting tissues, ending to implant loss, so that prevention and treatment of peri-implant disease are important. The measurements of volume and biomarkers concentration can be critically biased when data collected from studies with parallel group design are compared, given the technical difficulties, methodological variables, as well as the variability of crevicular fluid characteristics among different individuals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
