» Articles » PMID: 9650880

Probe Penetration in Relation to the Connective Tissue Attachment Level: Influence of Tine Shape and Probing Force

Overview
Date 1998 Jul 3
PMID 9650880
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Previous research has shown that probing force and probe tine shape influence the clinically assessed probing depth. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of tine shape and probing force on probe penetration, in relation to the microscopically assessed attachment level in untreated periodontal disease. In 22 patients, scheduled for partial or full mouth tooth extraction and no history of periodontal treatment, 135 teeth were selected. At mesial and distal sites of the teeth reference marks were cut. Three probe tines, mounted in a modified Florida Probe handpiece, were tested: a tapered, a parallel and a ball-ended; tip-diameter 0.5 mm. The three tines were distributed at random over the sites. At each site increasing probing forces of 0.10 N, 0.15 N, 0.20 N, 0.25 N were used. After extraction, the teeth were cleaned and stained for connective tissue fiber attachment. The distance between the reference mark and the attachment level was determined using a stereomicroscope. The results showed that the parallel and ball-ended tine measured significantly beyond the microscopically assessed attachment level at all force levels; with increasing forces, the parallel tine measured 0.96 to 1.38 mm and the ball-ended tine 0.73 to 1.06 mm deeper. The tapered tine did not deviate significantly from the microscopic values at the forces of 0.15, 0.20 and 0.25 N. It can be concluded that for the optimal assessment of the attachment level in inflamed periodontal conditions, a tapered probe with a tip diameter of 0.5 mm and exerting a probing force of 0.25 N may be most suitable.

Citing Articles

Influence of probiotics on the periodontium, the oral microbiota and the immune response during orthodontic treatment in adolescent and adult patients (ProMB Trial): study protocol for a prospective, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical....

Seidel C, Gerlach R, Weider M, Wolfel T, Schwarz V, Strobel A BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1):148.

PMID: 35477563 PMC: 9044659. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02180-8.


Comparison of periodontal evaluation by cone-beam computed tomography, and clinical and intraoral radiographic examinations.

Zhang W, Rajani S, Wang B Oral Radiol. 2018; 34(3):208-218.

PMID: 30484028 DOI: 10.1007/s11282-017-0298-4.


Clinical attachment loss: estimation by direct and indirect methods.

Barbosa V, Angst P, Finger Stadler A, Oppermann R, Gomes S Int Dent J. 2016; 66(3):144-9.

PMID: 26846817 PMC: 9376648. DOI: 10.1111/idj.12218.


Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements.

Al Shayeb K, Turner W, Gillam D Saudi Dent J. 2014; 26(2):50-5.

PMID: 25408596 PMC: 4229682. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2014.02.001.


Effects of different manual periodontal probes on periodontal measurements.

Holtfreter B, Alte D, Schwahn C, Desvarieux M, Kocher T J Clin Periodontol. 2012; 39(11):1032-41.

PMID: 22924328 PMC: 3619721. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01941.x.