Osmotic pressure of periimplant sulcular and gingival crevicular fluids: a split-mouth, randomized study of its measurement and clinical significance.
OBJECTIVE
This study comparatively investigated periimplant sulcular fluid (PISF) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) by means of the osmotic pressure (OP) levels of PISF (PISFOP) and GCF (GCFOP). It was a preliminary research that aimed to quantify PISFOP and GCFOP as well as to evaluate their clinical significances around implants and teeth.


METHODS
Partially edentulous implant patients treated by the same clinicians and using the same implant system were randomized in a split-mouth trial design. Fifty-four implants and teeth from these patients were selected in the same mouth and jaw as matched pairs of samples, i.e. as symmetrical or corresponding implant and tooth. PISFOP/GCFOP measurement was performed by an osmometer following PISF/GCF sampling procedures. Clinical significance was evaluated by the correlations between PISFOP/GCFOP and some clinical examination parameters of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues. These parameters included Silness-Löe plaque index (PI), Löe-Silness gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL).


RESULTS
PISFOP was higher than GCFOP, and GI, BOP, PPD and PAL were higher in the implant group than in the tooth group (P<0.05). PISFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of implants (P<0.01 for PI, GI and BOP; P<0.05 for PPD and PAL), and GCFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of teeth (P<0.01 for PPD; P<0.05 for PI, GI, BOP and PAL).


CONCLUSIONS
The results reveal that PISFOP and GCFOP may be measured by osmometer, and their levels may be related with the clinical conditions of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues.
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Umur
U
Sakallιoğlu
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Müge
M
Lütfioğlu
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Elif Eser
EE
Sakallιoğlu
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Sertaç
S
Sert
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayιs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Gözlem
G
Ceylan
D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous / Q000379:methods*; D015921:Dental Implants; D005260:Female; D005883:Gingival Crevicular Fluid; D006801:Humans; D007576:Jaw, Edentulous, Partially / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009997:Osmotic Pressure; D017622:Periodontal Attachment Loss / Q000473:pathology*; D010512:Periodontal Index; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000473:pathology*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D015921:Dental Implants