ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Peri-Implant Health and Perfusion Parameters in Patients After Microvascular Jaw Reconstruction: A Clinical Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate perfusion parameters and clinical features of healthy implants and implants affected by peri-implant disease in patients who had undergone microvascular jaw reconstruction.
methodsA total of 25 patients with 92 implants placed in microvascular transplants were included. Of these, 68 implants showed healthy peri-implant tissue, 12 were affected by peri-implant mucositis, and 12 were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Peri-implant perfusion was measured mesially and distally at the implant shoulder using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry (LDF-TS), followed by a clinical evaluation, including measurement of probing depths, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index, biotype, type of implant, the restoration and the presence of keratinized tissue. Perfusion parameters were compared between the healthy implants and the implants with peri-implant disease based on the conventional BOP-based diagnosis of peri-implantitis, and the associations between the perfusion values and clinical measurements were analyzed. Optimal cut-off values for predicting peri-implantitis were calculated with receiver operating characteristics.
resultsThe mean relative amount of hemoglobin and mean blood flow were significantly different between healthy implants and implants with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively). However, there are interindividual differences that appear to influence blood flow values as well. When a linear mixed regression model was applied, including the patient as a random variable, the difference in blood flow was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.400). Still, the optimal cut-off value of mean blood flow for predicting peri-implantitis was determined to be > 46.5 AU (AUC = 0.788; p < 0.001; CI = 0.695-0.881; sensitivity = 1.00, specificity = 0.60).
conclusionImplants in microvascular flaps are particularly vulnerable to peri-implant disease. Risk factors are the lack of keratinized peri-implant tissue, fixed restorations, bone-level implants, and high plaque levels. As a noninvasive and objective method, LDF-TS can contribute to risk assessment by evaluating perfusion parameters and help detect the early onset of peri-implant disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.