ArticleJournal of periodontology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of transmucosal probe visualization for peri-implant mucosal phenotype assessment: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Incidence of Peri-Implant Conditions: 25-Year Results of The Bernese Prospective Cohort Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Article
- Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Deformities in the Anterior Maxilla: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual assessment of mucosal transparency using a standard periodontal probe (VAT) to differentiate between thin and thick peri-implant mucosal phenotypes, compared to horizontal transmucosal probing (HTP). A secondary objective was to assess facial mucosal thickness (FMT) threshold values for peri-implant mucosa phenotype classification.
methodsAdult subjects with at least one non-molar single implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) were screened. To evaluate VAT, a standard periodontal probe was inserted through the peri-implant sulcus on the midfacial aspect. FMT was measured via HTP using an endodontic spreader.
resultsA total of 247 subjects and 281 ISPs constituted the study population. Setting a 2 mm threshold, 66.2% of sites were classified as thick and 33.8% as thin. Compared to HTP, VAT demonstrated a sensitivity (SE) of 12.6%, a specificity (SP) of 96.2%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 63%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 66%. At the 1.5 mm threshold, 86.1% of sites were thick and 13.9% thin, with 25.6% SE, 96.3% SP, 53% PPV, and 89% NPV. At the 1 mm threshold, 92.2% of sites were thick and 7.8% thin, with 41% SE, 96% SP, 47% PPV, and 95% NPV. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the best-fitting balance for PPV (58%) and NPV (91%) at an FMT of 1.25 mm.
conclusionsRegardless of the FMT threshold applied, VAT demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy, in particular for thin phenotypes, proving unreliable for the dichotomic characterization of thin and thick peri-implant mucosal phenotypes. This study was approved by the ethical committee for clinical studies in the canton of Bern, Switzerland (KEK-BE-No. 2023-01962).
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.