European Journal of Medical Research (Nov 2024)

Analyses of gingival papilla blood flow via color doppler flow imaging and micro-flow imaging in patients with advanced periodontitis: a clinical pilot study

  • Fei Xue,
  • Bin-Zhang Wu,
  • Rui Zhang,
  • Yong Zhang,
  • Nan Li

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-02111-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 29, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Research investigating the potential link between gingival microvascular blood flow and inflammatory status is scarce. This study aims to assess color doppler flow imaging (CDFI) and micro-flow imaging (MFI) as tools for the assessment of gingival papilla blood flow (GPBF) and to examine their diagnostic utility as a noninvasive means of detecting gingival bleeding. Methods CDFI and MFI were used to assess the GPBF grade (0–4) of 140 anterior gingival papilla sites in advanced periodontitis patients. Correlations between GPBF grades and periodontal characteristics were examined, and diagnostic performance as a means of predicting bleeding on probing (BOP) was examined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results GPBF grades 0 and 1 assessed by the MFI were 14.29% and 15.71% respectively, lower than the 28.57% and 24.29% assessed by the CDFI. In contrast, MFI detected a higher frequency of GPBF grade 2 sites (40.71%) relative to CDFI (22.14%). The CDFI and MFI provided consistent results in 62.14% of the sites, while the MFI demonstrated higher ratings in rest 37.86% of the sites. A significant positive correlation was detected between GPBF grade and the modified gingival index (MGI), bleeding index (BI), BOP, and probing depth (PD). It showed high accuracy for CDFI or MFI to diagnosing BOP with a sensitivity of 80.51% and 96.43% and a specificity of 77.27% and 57.14%, respectively. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve values when predicting BOP based on the GPBF grade determined using CDFI and MFI approaches 0.887 (95% CI 0.833–0.942) and 0.917 (95% CI 0.862–0.972), respectively, and there were no significant differences between these values (Z = − 1.502, p = 0.133). Conclusions Both MFI and CDFI can be employed for the evaluation of GPBF, and MFI is better suited to detecting mild inflammation. Trial registration ChiCTR2200066021 (Date of registration: 22/11/2022).

Keywords