Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40320760›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2025

Accuracy of Clinical Parameters in Predicting/Diagnosing Peri-Implant Bone Loss.

Mario Romandini, Cristina Lima, Miguel Moreno, Mariano Sanz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical periodontology, 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. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Five-Year Survival Outcomes of Angulated Dental Implants Placed Tangentially to the Inferior Alveolar Nerve in the Posterior Mandible.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Bone Grafts: Everything You Need to Know.Journal of periodontal research · 2026
    Review
  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

4 authors.

Mario RomandiniSection of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5646-083X
Cristina LimaSection of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel MorenoSection of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Mariano SanzSection of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6293-5755

Funding

Eklund Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo determine whether clinical parameters can serve as (i) predictive tools (before occurrence) and (ii) diagnostic tools (after occurrence) of peri-implant bone loss. MATERIALS AND

methodsA representative cohort of 72 patients with 298 implants was evaluated at baseline and after a mean follow-up period of 3.9 years. Peri-implant bone loss > 1 mm between the two examinations represented the reference standard. The accuracy of the following clinical parameters in predicting (at baseline) or diagnosing (at follow-up) peri-implant bone loss was assessed: presence of bleeding (BoP) or suppuration (SoP) on probing, visual signs of redness or swelling, BoP extent (number of sites with BoP) and severity (modified Bleeding Index-mBI), probing pocket depth (PPD) at various cut-offs, peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscence (PISTD) and changes in PPD/PISTD over time. Predictive/diagnostic performance was evaluated using mixed model logistic regression analyses and reporting sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) values.

resultsBone loss > 1 mm was observed in 9.4% of implants and was frequently preceded by BoP (sensitivity = 96.4%; specificity = 7.4%). At follow-up, bone loss was always associated with the concomitant presence of BoP (sensitivity = 100.0%; specificity = 14.4%). In predicting the future occurrence of peri-implant bone loss, high sensitivity (94.4%) was also noted for visual redness at baseline, although its specificity was low (25.9%). Conversely, high specificity but low sensitivity was observed for BoP at 6 sites (sensitivity = 25.0%; specificity = 88.1%) and SoP (sensitivity = 14.3%; specificity = 91.5%). For diagnosing recent peri-implant bone loss, high specificity was noted for SoP (100.0%), profuse bleeding (91.9%), BoP at 6 sites (87.0%), PPD ≥ 6 mm (81.9%), changes in PPD (95.9%) and changes in PISTD (91.5%). However, all these parameters showed limited sensitivity. The best diagnostic accuracy was achieved using a combined criterion of site-specific PPD or PISTD increases > 1 mm over time (sensitivity = 82.1%; specificity = 70.0%; AUC = 0.76).

conclusionsClinical signs considered indicative of peri-implant mucositis (presence of BoP, visual redness) usually precede peri-implant bone loss. Implants with a recent history of bone loss always present with concomitant BoP. However, the predictive/diagnostic value of detecting one or two spots of BoP is limited by its low specificity. Implants with BoP at six sites or SoP are more likely to exhibit bone loss over time. During follow-up, BoP at six sites, profuse bleeding, SoP, PPD ≥ 6 mm, or increases in PPD/PISTD over time have high specificity for diagnosis of recent peri-implant bone loss.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental ImplantsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeri-ImplantitisPeriodontal IndexPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityDental Implantsclinical attachment levelscohort studiesdental implantsdiagnosisgingival recessionperi‐implant diseasessensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID40320760
PMCPMC12259394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.