ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Comparative analysis of gingival crevicular fluid and peri-implant crevicular fluid by mid-infrared spectroscopy: a split mouth study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid Analysis by Mid-Infrared Spectroscopy in Peri-Implantitis-A Pilot Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis proof-of-concept study aimed to compare the biochemical composition of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) under healthy conditions, through mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing a split-mouth design, GCF and PICF samples were collected from 12 participants and analyzed through MIR spectroscopy. Advanced chemometric models, including partial least squares-discriminant analysis, k-nearest neighbors, and support vector machine discriminant analysis, were applied to explore potential biochemical differences between the biofluids.
resultsNo cluster formation was observed with PCA, indicating a high degree of similarity between groups. The PLS-DA model didn't effectively discriminate between GCF and PICF with prediction rates of 62.5% (10/16) for calibration, 37.5% (6/16) for cross-validation, and 50% (4/8) for validation. The k-NN model, using k = 3 neighbors showed 25% (4/16) correct classification rates during calibration and a validation set accuracy of 50%. SVM-DA analysis showed a correct prediction rate of 37.5% (6/16) for calibration and 50% for cross-validation 50% (8/16) and 50% (4/8) in the validation phase. Nonetheless, subtle spectral differences were observed in spectral regions R1 (3982-2652 cm⁻
conclusionsThe lack of significant biochemical differences between GCF and PICF under healthy conditions, as determined by MIR spectroscopy, suggests that implant-related changes in PICF composition are negligible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The demonstrated biochemical similarity between GCF and PICF under healthy conditions reinforces the potential of PICF as a reliable biofluid for diagnostic applications, including monitoring oral and systemic health biomarkers, without significant influence from implant-related factors.
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.