Clinical evaluation of tine shape of 3 periodontal probes using 2 probing forces

Barendregt, D.S.; Velden, U. van der; Reiker, J.; Loos, Bruno G.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00563.x

Cited by 29 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, there was a trend to larger probing depths when measurements were executed with a probe with a parallel-sided tine. Recently, Barendregt et al (1996) confirmed the importance of tine shape for the assessment of probing depth in a study that included 12 subjects exhibiting moderate to severe periodontitis.…”

Section: (Iv) Assessment Of Periodontal Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Periodontal Probing

Hefti

1997

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, probing clinical pocket depth and attachment level have been recognized as the dentist's most important tools in diagnosing periodontal health and disease. They are physical methods to measure the distance from the bottom of a pocket to a reference line, usually the gingival margin or the cemento-enamel junction. Probing accuracy and precision are affected by factors like the design of the probe, probing force, probe position, pocket depth, or tissue inflammation. Recently, several new electronic periodontal probes have been developed. They feature high instrument precision, allowing for measurements to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. They control for probing force and permit data to be collected and stored electronically. The purpose of this review paper is to summarize various aspects of periodontal probing. First, the history of periodontal probes will be briefly recollected, and interesting and significant inventions of the past and the present emphasized. Then, the importance of the periodontal tissues relative to probe tip penetration will be reviewed, and the probing performance will be discussed. The paper will conclude with notes on selected statistical issues.

show abstract

Section: (Iv) Assessment Of Periodontal Tissuesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Periodontal Probing

Hefti

1997

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree of probe tip penetration may be influenced by factors such as thickness of the probe, pressure applied, tooth contour, tooth position, presence of calculus, degree of periodontal inflammation, and the actual level of connective tissue fibers [19,20,21,22,23,24]. As a result, probing measurements may overestimate attachment loss by as much as 2 mm in untreated sites, while underestimating attachment loss by an even greater margin following treatment [25,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasonic Periodontal Probing Based on the Dynamic Wavelet Fingerprint

Hou

Rose²,

Hinders

2005

EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual pocket depth probing has been widely used as a retrospective diagnosis method in periodontics. However, numerous studies have questioned its ability to accurately measure the anatomic pocket depth. In this paper, an ultrasonic periodontal probing method is described, which involves using a hollow water-filled probe to focus a narrow beam of ultrasound energy into and out of the periodontal pocket, followed by automatic processing of pulse-echo signals to obtain the periodontal pocket depth. The signal processing algorithm consists of three steps: peak detection/characterization, peak classification, and peak identification. A dynamic wavelet fingerprint (DWFP) technique is first applied to detect suspected scatterers in the A-scan signal and generate a two-dimensional black and white pattern to characterize the local transient signal corresponding to each scatterer. These DWFP patterns are then classified by a two-dimensional FFT procedure and mapped to an inclination index curve. The location of the pocket bottom was identified as the third broad peak in the inclination index curve. The algorithm is tested on full-mouth probing data from two sequential visits of 14 patients. Its performance is evaluated by comparing ultrasonic probing results with that of full-mouth manual probing at the same sites, which is taken as the "gold standard."

show abstract

“…Instead, the periodontal probe measures the probing attachment level, which is defined as the distance from the cemento-enamel junction to the apical depth of periodontal probe tip penetration into the gingival crevice. The degree of probe tip penetration may be influenced by factors such as thickness of the probe, pressure applied, tooth contour, tooth position, presence of calculus, degree of periodontal inflammation, and the actual level of connective tissue fibers [20][21][22][23][24][25]. As a result, probing measurements may overestimate attachment loss by as much as 2 mm in untreated sites, while underestimating attachment loss by an even greater margin following treatment [26,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%