Display options
Cite
Renatus A, Trentzsch L, Schönfelder A, et al. Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11):ZH03-ZH07doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886.
Renatus, A., Trentzsch, L., Schönfelder, A., Schwarzenberger, F., & Jentsch, H. (2016). Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 10(11), ZH03-ZH07. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886
Renatus, Antonio, et al. "Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe." Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR vol. 10,11 (2016): ZH03-ZH07. doi: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886
Renatus A, Trentzsch L, Schönfelder A, Schwarzenberger F, Jentsch H. Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZH03-ZH07. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886. Epub 2016 Nov 01. PMID: 28050524; PMCID: PMC5198477.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZH03-ZH07. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886. Epub 2016 Nov 01.

Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe.

Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR

Antonio Renatus, Lars Trentzsch, Antje Schönfelder, Fabian Schwarzenberger, Holger Jentsch

Affiliations

  1. Faculty, Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, Centre for Periodontology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany .
  2. Student, Faculty of Biologie, Pharmacy and Psychology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany .
  3. Professor, HTW Dresden, Faculty of Informatics/Mathematics, Dresden, Saxony, Germany .
  4. Professor, Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, Centre for Periodontology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany .

PMID: 28050524 PMCID: PMC5198477 DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22603.8886

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of periodontal diseases requires reco-rding of clinical and periodontal variables. Possible measurement errors in recording the periodontal findings are dependent on the measurement method.

AIM: The purpose of the trial was to investigate an electronic, pressure-calibrated probe compared with a standard, manual measurement probe used to take periodontal variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 25 subjects suffering from periodontal disease. Their findings were taken by two users on a randomized basis using a standard probe and an electronic, pressure calibrated probe, at an interval of 24 hours. The recorded clinical variables contained Pocket Depth (PD), Attachment Level (AL), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), the complete time needed to take the findings and the sensation of pain experienced by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The data were statistically analyzed using the paired t-test.

RESULTS: The measurement values (24 patients) for PD (p=0.03) and BOP (p=0.01) indicated a significant difference (paired t test, p>0.05), while there was no statistical difference for AL (p=0.064). A classification of PD into groups of 1-3mm, 4-6mm and ≥7mm showed that the manual method measured higher values than the electronic method (p=0.001). The measurement values did not reveal any significant differences (p>0.05) with respect to the total time needed to take findings and the measurement time for PD/AL. There was a significant difference (Wilcoxon-test, p<0.05) in VAS values (p=0.048) and in terms of the time needed to record the findings for BOP (p=0.004).

CONCLUSION: It can be assumed that the electronic probe should mainly be used in the supportive periodontal therapy. Present study showed that the use of a standard manual probe is essential to review conspicuous or unclear measurement values, or when treating deep pockets higher than 7mm.

Keywords: Periodontal diagnostics; Periodontal variables; Periodontitis

References

  1. J Periodontol. 1992 Oct;63(10):831-8 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Aug;36(8):669-76 - PubMed
  3. J Periodontol. 1998 Jul;69(7):812-8 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Periodontol. 1984 Aug;11(7):475-85 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Periodontol. 1989 Mar;16(3):140-3 - PubMed
  6. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2016 May-Jun;20(3):299-306 - PubMed
  7. J Periodontol. 1989 Sep;60(9):498-505 - PubMed
  8. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993 Dec;13(6):520-9 - PubMed
  9. J Periodontol. 1981 Jul;52(7):390-1 - PubMed
  10. Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Mar;190(3):293-7 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Periodontol. 1978 Aug;5(3):188-97 - PubMed
  12. Helv Odontol Acta. 1971 Oct;15(2):114-7 - PubMed
  13. J Periodontol. 1980 May;51(5):298-300 - PubMed
  14. J Periodontal Res. 1967;2(3):180-4 - PubMed
  15. Clin Oral Investig. 2007 Dec;11(4):377-83 - PubMed
  16. Braz Oral Res. 2012 Jan-Feb;26(1):57-63 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Periodontol. 1987 Aug;14(7):407-11 - PubMed
  18. Northwest Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;79(6):31-5 - PubMed
  19. Periodontol 2000. 1995 Feb;7:39-53 - PubMed
  20. Evid Based Dent. 2009;10(2):39 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Periodontol. 1987 Sep;14(8):472-7 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Nov;39(11):1032-41 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Periodontol. 1997 Dec;24(12 ):920-6 - PubMed
  24. J Clin Periodontol. 1988 Mar;15(3):185-8 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Mar;31(3):173-6 - PubMed
  26. J Dent. 2008 Aug;36(8):651-7 - PubMed
  27. J Periodontol. 2003 Dec;74(12):1736-40 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 May;29 Suppl 2:6-16 - PubMed

Publication Types