Comparative volumetric and clinical evaluation of peri-implant sulcular fluid and gingival crevicular fluid.
10.5051/jpis.2013.43.5.233
- Author:
Smiti BHARDWAJ
1
;
Munivenkatappa Lakshmaiah Venkatesh PRABHUJI
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Bangalore, India. smitibhardwaj@gmail.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dental implants;
Gingival crevicular fluid;
Inflammation;
Peri-implantitis
- MeSH:
Dental Implants;
Gingival Crevicular Fluid*;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Inflammation;
Mass Screening;
Mucositis;
Peri-Implantitis;
Periodontal Index
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2013;43(5):233-242
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) has a production mechanism similar to gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). However, limited research has been performed comparing their behavior in response to inflammation. Hence, the aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate PISF and GCF volume with varying degrees of clinical inflammatory parameters. METHODS: Screening of patients was conducted. Based on the perimucosal inflammatory status, 39 loaded implant sites were selected from 24 patients, with equal numbers of sites in healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis subgroups. GCF collection was done from age- and sex-matched dentate patients, selected with gingival inflammatory status corresponding to the implant sites. Assessment of the inflammatory status for dental/implant sites was performed using probing depth (PD), plaque index/modified plaque index (PI/mPI), gingival index/simplified gingival index (GI/sGI), and modified sulcular bleeding index (BI). Sample collection was done using standardized absorbent paper strips with volumetric evaluation performed via an electronic volume quantification device. RESULTS: Positive correlation of the PISF and GCF volume was seen with increasing PD and clinical inflammatory parameters. A higher correlation of GCF with PD (0.843) was found when compared to PISF (0.771). PISF expressed a higher covariation with increasing grades of sGI (0.885), BI (0.841), and mPI (0.734), while GCF established a moderately positive correlation with GI (0.694), BI (0.696), and PI (0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, except for minor fluctuations, GCF and PISF volumes demonstrated a similar nature and volumetric pattern through increasing grades of inflammation, with PISF showing better correlation with the clinical parameters.
