Effects of Different Manual Periodontal Probes on Periodontal Measurements

Overview

Journal J Clin Periodontol

Date 2012 Aug 29

PMID 22924328

Citations 14

Authors

Birte Holtfreter

Dietrich Alte

Christian Schwahn

Moise Desvarieux

Thomas Kocher

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aim: To quantify the digit preference effect for three manual periodontal probes and to calculate correction values to enable comparison of studies with equal recording protocols, but different periodontal probes.

Material And Methods: A prospective in vivo crossover study was conducted with a six-sequence three-period design. Six examiners assessed attachment loss (AL), probing pocket depth (PD) and gingiva height (GH) at four surfaces, full-mouth, in six generally healthy subjects using three manual probes: PCP11 (3-3-3-2 mm increments), PCP2 (2 mm increments), and PCPUNC15 (1 mm increments).

Results: Distributions of AL, PD and GH differed between probes (p < 0.001). Compared with PCPUNC15, periodontal measurements coinciding with probe markings of PCP11 and PCP2, respectively, were preferentially named by examiners. Digit preference was most pronounced for PD, but less for AL and GH. In multilevel models, PD differed significantly between all three probes (p < 0.05); probe- and examiner-related effects were also observed for AL and GH. Correction values for pairwise combinations of probes were determined.

Conclusions: We provided empirical evidence and quantified the effect of probe type on periodontal measurements. Differences in probe type should be considered when comparing periodontal data within and between epidemiological studies and appropriate corrections, provided here, should be applied.

Citing Articles

A Cross-Sectional Study of Peri-Implant Diseases in a Random Norwegian Population: Prevalence, Risk Indicators, and Clinical Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Mauland E, Sorensen K, Aarbu N, Verket A, Ellingsen S, Bull V Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024; 36(2):153-165.

PMID: 39381842 PMC: 11810557. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14371.

Point-of-care diagnostic devices for periodontitis - current trends and urgent need.

Griffith A, Chande C, Kulkarni S, Morel J, Cheng Y, Shimizu E Sens Diagn. 2024; 3(7):1119-1134.

PMID: 39007012 PMC: 11238172. DOI: 10.1039/d3sd00317e.

Periodontitis and systemic inflammation as independent and interacting risk factors for mortality: evidence from a prospective cohort study.

Pink C, Holtfreter B, Volzke H, Nauck M, Dorr M, Kocher T BMC Med. 2023; 21(1):430.

PMID: 37953258 PMC: 10642059. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-03139-4.

Accurate gingival recession quantification using 3D digital dental models.

Dritsas K, Halazonetis D, Ghamri M, Sculean A, Katsaros C, Gkantidis N Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 27(4):1697-1705.

PMID: 36424472 PMC: 10102060. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04795-1.

Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Laugisch O, Auschill T, Heumann C, Sculean A, Arweiler N Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(1).

PMID: 35054209 PMC: 8774924. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010042.

References

Watts T . Constant force probing with and without a stent in untreated periodontal disease: the clinical reproducibility problem and possible sources of error. J Clin Periodontol. 1987; 14(7):407-11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1987.tb01545.x. View

Hefti A . Periodontal probing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997; 8(3):336-56. DOI: 10.1177/10454411970080030601. View

van Weringh M, Barendregt D, Rosema N, Timmerman M, Van der Weijden G . A thin or thick probe handle: does it make a difference?. Int J Dent Hyg. 2006; 4(3):140-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2006.00187.x. View

van der Zee E, Davies E, Newman H . Marking width, calibration from tip and tine diameter of periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1991; 18(7):516-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb00083.x. View

Karpinia K, Magnusson I, Gibbs C, Yang M . Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(3):173-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00464.x. View

Crawford S, Johannes C, Stellato R . Assessment of digit preference in self-reported year at menopause: choice of an appropriate reference distribution. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156(7):676-83. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwf059. View

Tibbetts Jr L . Use of diagnostic probes for detection of periodontal disease. J Am Dent Assoc. 1969; 78(3):549-55. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1969.0127. View

Reddy M, Palcanis K, Geurs N . A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements. J Clin Periodontol. 1998; 24(12):920-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb01212.x. View

Samuel E, Griffiths G, Petrie A . In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24(5):340-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb00767.x. View

10.

Hassell T, Germann M, Saxer U . Periodontal probing: interinvestigator discrepancies and correlations between probing force and recorded depth. Helv Odontol Acta. 1973; 17(1):38-42. View

11.

Silva-Boghossian C, Amaral C, Maia L, Luiz R, Colombo A . Manual and electronic probing of the periodontal attachment level in untreated periodontitis: a systematic review. J Dent. 2008; 36(8):651-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.015. View

12.

Beck J, Caplan D, Preisser J, Moss K . Reducing the bias of probing depth and attachment level estimates using random partial-mouth recording. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006; 34(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00252.x. View

13.

Vettore M, Lamarca G, Thome Leao A, Sheiham A, Leal M . Partial recording protocols for periodontal disease assessment in epidemiological surveys. Cad Saude Publica. 2006; 23(1):33-42. DOI: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007000100005. View

14.

Holtfreter B, Schwahn C, Biffar R, Kocher T . Epidemiology of periodontal diseases in the Study of Health in Pomerania. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(2):114-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01361.x. View

15.

Bulthuis H, Barendregt D, Timmerman M, Loos B, Van der Velden U . Probe penetration in relation to the connective tissue attachment level: influence of tine shape and probing force. J Clin Periodontol. 1998; 25(5):417-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02465.x. View

16.

Volzke H, Alte D, Schmidt C, Radke D, Lorbeer R, Friedrich N . Cohort profile: the study of health in Pomerania. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 40(2):294-307. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyp394. View

17.

Osborn J, Stoltenberg J, Huso B, Aeppli D, Pihlstrom B . Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe. J Periodontol. 1990; 61(8):497-503. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1990.61.8.497. View

18.

Kashmere J, Kirk A . The complex interaction of normal biases in line bisection. Neurology. 1997; 49(3):887-9. DOI: 10.1212/wnl.49.3.887. View

19.

Atassi F, Newman H, Bulman J . Probe tine diameter and probing depth. J Clin Periodontol. 1992; 19(5):301-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1992.tb00648.x. View

20.

Barendregt D, van der Velden U, Timmerman M, Van der Weijden F . Penetration depths with an ultrasonic mini insert compared with a conventional curette in patients with periodontitis and in periodontal maintenance. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35(1):31-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01169.x. View