1994Journal of PeriodontologyRequires access

A Clinical Study of an Electronic Constant Force Periodontal Probe

Louise Tupta‐Veselicky, Pouran Famili, Francis J. Ceravolo, Thomas G. Zullo

Open publisher page 25 citations

Abstract

Automated probing systems have been developed to provide a more precise method of evaluating periodontal pocket depths and attachment levels. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance (reproducibility, time, and comfort) of a new electronic probe (E.P.) compared to the UNC 15 conventional probe (C.P.). Paired measurements 2 hours apart were performed by one examiner on 20 patients with moderate to advanced localized or generalized adult periodontitis. Both the E.P. and C.P. were used on each patient in a random manner. Overall reproducibility (+/- 1.5 mm) was: E.P. 94% (n = 1181); C.P. 96.5% (n = 1254); E.P./C.P. used interchangeably 82.4% (n = 830). In assessing the reproducibility of bleeding on probing, using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, only the mid-facial surface, when using the C.P. exhibited differences between measurements (P < 0.017). Paired t test revealed E.P. took significantly longer per exam (4 minutes, 46 seconds). Comfort levels, evaluated with a visual analog scale, were not significantly different between probes as shown by the Mann Whitney U test. The data suggest that, in general, there was no major significant difference in reproducibility measurements between the E.P. and the C.P. The E.P. took more time. Comfort levels were similar for both probes.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Automated probing systems have been developed to provide a more precise method of evaluating periodontal pocket depths and attachment levels. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance (reproducibility, time, and comfort) of a new electronic probe (E.P.) compared to the UNC 15 conventional probe (C.P.). Paired measurements 2 hours apart were performed by one examiner on 20 patients with moderate to advanced localized or generalized adult periodontitis. Both the E.P. and C.P. were used on each patient in a random manner. Overall reproducibility (+/- 1.5 mm) was: E.P. 94% (n = 1181); C.P. 96.5% (n = 1254); E.P./C.P. used interchangeably 82.4% (n = 830). In assessing the reproducibility of bleeding on probing, using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, only the mid-facial surface, when using the C.P. exhibited differences between measurements (P < 0.017). Paired t test revealed E.P. took significantly longer per exam (4 minutes, 46 seconds). Comfort levels, evaluated with a visual analog scale, were not significantly different between probes as shown by the Mann Whitney U test. The data suggest that, in general, there was no major significant difference in reproducibility measurements between the E.P. and the C.P. The E.P. took more time. Comfort levels were similar for both probes.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 25 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Automated probing systems have been developed to provide a more precise method of evaluating periodontal pocket depths and attachment levels. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance (reproducibility, time, and comfort) of a new electronic probe (E.P.) compared to the UNC 15 conventional probe (C.P.). Paired measurements 2 hours apart were performed by one examiner on 20 patients with moderate to advanced localized or generalized adult periodontitis. Both the E.P. and C.P. were used on each patient in a random manner. Overall reproducibility (+/- 1.5 mm) was: E.P. 94% (n = 1181); C.P. 96.5% (n = 1254); E.P./C.P. used interchangeably 82.4% (n = 830). In assessing the reproducibility of bleeding on probing, using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, only the mid-facial surface, when using the C.P. exhibited differences between measurements (P < 0.017). Paired t test revealed E.P. took significantly longer per exam (4 minutes, 46 seconds). Comfort levels, evaluated with a visual analog scale, were not significantly different between probes as shown by the Mann Whitney U test. The data suggest that, in general, there was no major significant difference in reproducibility measurements between the E.P. and the C.P. The E.P. took more time. Comfort levels were similar for both probes.

Key concepts: Constant (computer programming), Dentistry, Medicine, Computer science, Programming language

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Clinical Study of an Electronic Constant Force Periodontal Probe — Research Paper | ScholarLens