Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40101934›Full record

SynthesisJournal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology2025

Biomarkers in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid of Healthy Implants and Those With Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Gerardo La Monaca, Nicola Pranno, Romeo Patini, Antonella Polimeni, Massimo Cordaro, Maria Paola Cristalli

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gerardo La MonacaDepartment of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6537-7050
Nicola PrannoDepartment of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4095-0900
Romeo PatiniDepartment of Head, Neck and Sense Organs, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7358-8763
Antonella PolimeniDepartment of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2679-7607
Massimo CordaroDepartment of Head, Neck and Sense Organs, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-5177
Maria Paola CristalliDepartment of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-7030

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral biomarkers in peri-implant crevicular fluid have been studied to diagnose peri-implant diseases with inconclusive results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively compare data on the levels of biological components in peri-implant crevicular fluid collected from healthy and diseased implants to identify reliable biomarkers for diagnosing and monitoring peri-implant disease. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe search strategy included studies comparing biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid between healthy and diseased implants through electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library), grey literature, and hand-searching relevant journals and reference lists of pertinent papers. A two-stage screening was performed in duplicate and independently. In the first stage, titles and abstracts that fulfilled eligibility criteria were screened. In the second stage, a full-text analysis was conducted to verify eligibility. All articles meeting the inclusion criteria underwent data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analyses were conducted on studies with similar comparisons and outcome measures.

resultsAfter screening the titles and abstracts, out of 100 potentially relevant papers identified for full-text evaluation, 49 were excluded, 51 were included in the qualitative analysis, and 18 were included in the quantitative synthesis. Among 96 biomarkers assessed, the most studied were pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1ß, IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-17), osteoclastogenic-related factors (RANK, RANKL, and OPG), anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10), chemokines (IL-8, MIP-1α/CCL3, and MIP-3α/CCL-20), and enzymes (MMP-8, Cat-K, AST, and ALT).

conclusionsMeta-analyses comparing data from healthy patients and those with peri-implantitis or mucositis and between patients with mucositis and those with peri-implantitis showed a moderate predictive value of IL-1ß, VEGF, cortisol, and sRANKL/OPG for peri-implantitis.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDental ImplantsGingival Crevicular FluidPeri-ImplantitisCytokinesHumansBiomarkersCytokinesDental Implantsbiomarkersmolecular diagnosismucositisperi‐implant crevicular fluidperi‐implant diseaseperi‐implantitisperi‐implant sulcular fluid

Identifiers

PMID40101934
PMCPMC12077954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.