Discomfort/pain due to periodontal and peri-implant probing with/without platform switching

Objective: To compare discomfort/pain following periodontal probing around teeth and peri-implant probing around implants with or without platform switching. Methods: Two dentists recruited and examined 65 patients, each of them exhibiting a dental implant with a contralateral tooth. Only two types of implants were included: one with and one without platform switching. Periodontal and peri-implant probing depths (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) were assessed. Whether implant or tooth was measured first was randomly assigned. Immediately after probing, patients scored discomfort/pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The emergence profiles of implant crowns were assessed as angles between interproximal surfaces on radiographs. Results: Sixty-five patients (age 69; 63/76 years [median; lower/upper quartile]; 38 females, 11 smokers) were examined. With the exception of mean PPD and PAL (p <.05) clinical parameters (PPD, PAL, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were well balanced between implants and teeth. Peri-implant probing (VAS: 10; 0.75/16.25) caused significantly (p <.001) more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing (4; 0/10). Logistic regression analysis identified a larger difference between discomfort/pain for peri-implant and periodontal probing in the maxilla than the mandible (p =.003). Comparing discomfort/pain between implants maxilla (p =.006) and emergence profile (p =.015) were associated with discomfort/pain. Type of implant (with/without platform switching) had no significant effect on discomfort/pain. Conclusions: Peri-implant probing caused significantly more discomfort/pain than periodontal probing. Implant design with/without platform switching failed to have a significant effect on discomfort/pain.