Comparison of a Conventional Probe With Electronic and Manual Pressure‐Regulated Probes

Abstract

We compared the accuracy, consistency, time, comfort, and cost of probing with a conventional hand probe (CP) with 3-mm banded markings, a manual pressure-regulated probe (MP), and two electronic probes (IP and FP). Twenty (20) examiners used all four probes on a test block to determine accuracy; measurements compared favorably to the reference block. Two calibrated examiners probed the Ramfjord teeth of 10 periodontal patients on maintenance regimens, six sites per tooth (n = 708), with all four probes; measurements were repeated after one week. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed the CP measured more deeply (P < 0.0001) than MP, FP, and IP with mean differences of 0.40, 0.67, and 0.58 respectively. MP measured more deeply (P < 0.001) than FP and IP, with mean differences of 0.27 and 0.18 mm. There was no difference between FP and IP. Time (min:sec) required by one examiner to perform full mouth probing on six subjects (minimum of 26 teeth each) was CP = 3:59; MP = 4:18; FP = 6:16; and IP = 7:23. Subjects rated FP and IP as slightly more uncomfortable than CP or MP. Cost per 1,000 uses was computed based on available data. The IP and FP took longer to perform and cost more per procedure than did the CP and MP. Spearman rank-order correlation revealed that only probe depths measured by CP and MP were well correlated (rs = 0.67). Although some statistically significant differences were found between probes, no differences were considered to be of clinical significance when probing periodontally healthy or maintenance patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes

“…One common problem was encountered as the underestimation of deep probing depths by the automated probe, which is similar to the study by Perry D A et al 1994. 18 The comparative evaluation between the conventional Williams periodontal probe and Florida probing system in the present study has confirmed that efficacy of Florida probing system for measurement of probing depth and clinical attachment levels is more consistent. It is recommended for multicentre study employing larger numbers of subjects and examiners for further evaluation.…”

“…Also, clinicians need to be trained to operate these probes. 8 Aim of this study was to assess and compare the accuracy of the Florida probe and Williams periodontal probe in determining the periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment level. The objectives of study was to determine whether Florida probe is better in determining periodontal pocket depth when compared with Williams periodontal probe and also to determine whether CEJ probe (a component of Florida probe system) is better in determining CAL when compared with Williams periodontal probe.…”

Reproducibility of Probing Depth Measurements Using a Constant‐Force Electronic Probe: Analysis of Inter‐ and Intraexaminer Variability

“…Our study went further than previously reported work, 6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] in that we calculated these values of reliability at both the quadrant and the tooth level. We observed similar ranges of values regardless of which measure was assessed.…”

Methodological issues in epidemiological studies of periodontitis - how can it be improved?

“…In terms of reproducibility of measurements for probing pocket depths and attachment loss, studies performed by Perry et al (1994) and Tupta-Veselicky et al (1994) suggested that there were no significant advantages in the use of second or third generation probes [56,57]. This was also confirmed in a systematic review of clinical trials evaluating the reproducibility of manual (MP) and electronic probes (EP) in the measurement of clinical periodontal attachment level (AL) in untreated periodontitis subjects [58].…”