Effectiveness of Biomarker-Guided Implant Risk (BGIR) vs. IDRA and PiRA Scores in Predicting the Onset of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Long-Term Retrospective Study
- 1Private Peridontal Implant Practice, 31100 Treviso, Italy
- 2Dental School, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, 00128 Rome, Italy
- 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Abstract
Objectives: The long-term prognostic value of the biomarker-guided implant risk (BGIR) score was compared with two other risk models, the IDRA (implant disease risk assessment) and the PiRA (peri-implantitis risk assessment), in predicting the onset of implant diseases in patients attending a private practice and enrolled in a supportive care program (SCP). Methods: From a pool of private implant patients subjected to at least 10 years of SCP, 80 partially edentulous subjects were recruited and retrospectively evaluated. The BGIR, the IDRA and the PiRA scores were calculated during SCP and compared to each other. Prognostic scores of BGIR, IDRA and PiRA were estimated based on the area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic (ROC), including 95% confidence intervals. High-risk BGIR, IDRA and PiRA subgroups versus low/moderate BGIR, IDRA and PiRA subgroups were compared at the patient level using Cox regression analyses. Results: The mean implant follow-up was 10.5 years. Peri-implantitis incidence was 17.5%. The BGIR, IDRA and PiRA high-risk percentages were 27.5%,21.2% and 25%, respectively. The areas under the ROC curve for BGIR, IDRA and PiRA were 0.836, 0.758, and 0.769, respectively, for peri-implantitis events. BGIR, IDRA and PiRA high-risk scores were found to be significantly associated with the onset of peri-implantitis, with hazard ratios (HR) of 4.7, 3.6 and 3.8, respectively. Compared to IDRA and PiRA, BGIR showed higher specificity and sensitivity. However, comparisons between the area under the, curves (AUC) of the three independent ROC curves showed no statistical significance. Conclusions: Compared to IDRA and PiRA, calculation of the BGIR score during follow-up seems to have a greater ability to predict the onset of peri-implant diseases in daily clinical practice.
Related
- Effectiveness of Flapless Static Computer-Aided Implant Surgery in Post-Oncological Patients: A Retrospective Study
- Bone marrow kinase X-linked in pulmonary diseases: pathogenic gene, diagnostic biomarker, and treatment target—a narrative review
- MMP-7 as a non-invasive biomarker in interstitial lung diseases and other chronic respiratory diseases: a narrative review
- Multi-Scale MRI, Radiology Reports, and Blood Biomarker–Guided Multimodal Deep Learning for Predicting Postoperative Recurrence in Cervical Cancer: A Multicenter Study
- Defining and predicting disease progression in myeloproliferative neoplasms: a proposed biomarker-driven approach
BibTeX
@article{guarnieri2026effectiveness,
title = {{Effectiveness of Biomarker-Guided Implant Risk (BGIR) vs. IDRA and PiRA Scores in Predicting the Onset of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Long-Term Retrospective Study}},
author = {Renzo Guarnieri and Rodolfo Reda and Gabriele Miccoli and Marta Cianfriglia and Gualtiero Gherardi and Luca Testarelli and Dario Di Nardo},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15208159},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8159},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effectiveness of Biomarker-Guided Implant Risk (BGIR) vs. IDRA and PiRA Scores in Predicting the Onset of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Long-Term Retrospective Study
AU - Renzo Guarnieri
AU - Rodolfo Reda
AU - Gabriele Miccoli
AU - Marta Cianfriglia
AU - Gualtiero Gherardi
AU - Luca Testarelli
AU - Dario Di Nardo
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15208159
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8159
AB - Objectives: The long-term prognostic value of the biomarker-guided implant risk (BGIR) score was compared with two other risk models, the IDRA (implant disease risk assessment) and the PiRA (peri-implantitis risk assessment), in predicting the onset of implant diseases in patients attending a private practice and enrolled in a supportive care program (SCP). Methods: From a pool of private implant patients subjected to at least 10 years of SCP, 80 partially edentulous subjects were recruited and retrospectively evaluated. The BGIR, the IDRA and the PiRA scores were calculated during SCP and compared to each other. Prognostic scores of BGIR, IDRA and PiRA were estimated based on the area under the curve for receiver operating characteristic (ROC), including 95% confidence intervals. High-risk BGIR, IDRA and PiRA subgroups versus low/moderate BGIR, IDRA and PiRA subgroups were compared at the patient level using Cox regression analyses. Results: The mean implant follow-up was 10.5 years. Peri-implantitis incidence was 17.5%. The BGIR, IDRA and PiRA high-risk percentages were 27.5%,21.2% and 25%, respectively. The areas under the ROC curve for BGIR, IDRA and PiRA were 0.836, 0.758, and 0.769, respectively, for peri-implantitis events. BGIR, IDRA and PiRA high-risk scores were found to be significantly associated with the onset of peri-implantitis, with hazard ratios (HR) of 4.7, 3.6 and 3.8, respectively. Compared to IDRA and PiRA, BGIR showed higher specificity and sensitivity. However, comparisons between the area under the, curves (AUC) of the three independent ROC curves showed no statistical significance. Conclusions: Compared to IDRA and PiRA, calculation of the BGIR score during follow-up seems to have a greater ability to predict the onset of peri-implant diseases in daily clinical practice.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -