Assessment of Intra- and Inter-examiner Reproducibility of Probing Depth Measurements with a Manual Periodontal Probe

Overview

Journal J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 Jan 2

PMID 23277829

Citations 4

Authors

Ardeshir Lafzi

Adileh Shir Mohammadi

Amir Eskandari

Sohrab Pourkhamneh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Aims: The main purpose of this study was to assess intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of probing depth measurements with a manual periodontal probe.

Materials And Methods: In this study, 32 dental students in Tabriz Faculty of Dentistry with normal periodontium were evaluated. Each tooth of the upper right quadrants, except the third molars, was examined. Probing depths were measured in 6 surfaces of each tooth (mesiofacial, midfacial, distofacial, mesiolingual, midlingual and distolingual). Each patient was examined by two examiners (two periodontists) in two sessions with an interval of 7-10 days. A total of 218 teeth and 1295 surfaces were examined.

Results: Intra-examiner measurements showed no statistically significant differences, while the differences of inter-examiner measurements were statistically significant. Intra-examiner reproducibility was more than the inter-examiner one. Measurements for anterior region, facial and mid-facial/mid-lingual surfaces were more reproducible than posterior, lingual and proximal surfaces.

Conclusion: Probing depth measurements with a conventional probe have an appropriate reproducibility in clinical settings, although variations between examiners may affect the reproducibility, especially when great accuracy is required.

Citing Articles

Periodontal probing on digital images compared to clinical measurements in periodontitis patients.

Chung H, Park J, Ko K, Kim C, Choi S, Lee J Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):1616.

PMID: 35102150 PMC: 8803931. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04695-6.

Use of the deep learning approach to measure alveolar bone level.

Lee C, Kabir T, Nelson J, Sheng S, Meng H, Van Dyke T J Clin Periodontol. 2021; 49(3):260-269.

PMID: 34879437 PMC: 9026777. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13574.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Oral Fluids Biomarker Profile to Determine the Current and Future Status of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases.

Gul S, Abdulkareem A, Sha A, Rawlinson A Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10(10).

PMID: 33081038 PMC: 7603129. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10100838.

Feasibility of training community health workers to conduct periodontal examinations: a validation study in rural Nepal.

Erchick D, Agrawal N, Khatry S, Katz J, LeClerq S, Rai B BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1):412.

PMID: 32393349 PMC: 7212579. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05276-5.

References

Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J . Reproducibility of probing attachment level measurements. J Clin Periodontol. 1984; 11(7):475-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1984.tb01347.x. View

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

Mayfield L, Bratthall G, Attstrom R . Periodontal probe precision using 4 different periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1996; 23(2):76-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00538.x. View

Magnusson I, Fuller W, Heins P, RAU C, Gibbs C, Marks R . Correlation between electronic and visual readings of pocket depths with a newly developed constant force probe. J Clin Periodontol. 1988; 15(3):180-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1988.tb01566.x. View

Listgarten M . Periodontal probing: what does it mean?. J Clin Periodontol. 1980; 7(3):165-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1980.tb01960.x. View

Perry D, Taggart E, Leung A, NEWBURN E . Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes. J Periodontol. 1994; 65(10):908-13. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1994.65.10.908. View

Buduneli E, Aksoy O, Kose T, Atilla G . Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31(10):815-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00560.x. View

Khocht A, Chang K . Clinical evaluation of electronic and manual constant force probes. J Periodontol. 1998; 69(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.1.19. View

Mullally B, Linden G . Comparative reproducibility of proximal probing depth using electronic pressure-controlled and hand probing. J Clin Periodontol. 1994; 21(4):284-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1994.tb00319.x. View

10.

Rams T, Slots J . Comparison of two pressure-sensitive periodontal probes and a manual periodontal probe in shallow and deep pockets. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993; 13(6):520-9. View

11.

Clark W, Yang M, Magnusson I . Measuring clinical attachment: reproducibility of relative measurements with an electronic probe. J Periodontol. 1992; 63(10):831-8. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1992.63.10.831. View

12.

Wang S, Leknes K, Zimmerman G, Sigurdsson T, Wikesjo U, SELVIG K . Intra - and inter-examiner reproducibility in constant force probing. J Clin Periodontol. 1995; 22(12):918-22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01795.x. View

13.

Kingman A, Loe H, Anerud A, BOYSEN H . Errors in measuring parameters associated with periodontal health and disease. J Periodontol. 1991; 62(8):477-86. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1991.62.8.477. View

14.

Freed H, Gapper R, Kalkwarf K . Evaluation of periodontal probing forces. J Periodontol. 1983; 54(8):488-92. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1983.54.8.488. View

15.

Wang S, Leknes K, Zimmerman G, Sigurdsson T, Wikesjo U, SELVIG K . Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. J Periodontol. 1995; 66(1):38-46. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1995.66.1.38. View