Abstract:Periodontal probes are the main instruments that are used to assess the status of the periodontium, either for screening purposes or to evaluate periodontal changes throughout the treatment process. With increased knowledge and understanding of periodontal disease, the probes have evolved from a unidimensional manual shape into a more sophisticated computerised instrument. This is due to the need to increase the accuracy and reproducibility of readings and to improve efficiency (time, effort, money). Each prob… Show more
“…Periodontal pockets are clinically assessed using a calibrated thin metal dental instrument called a periodontal probe (Table ). The periodontal probe, marked in mm, is inserted into the gingival sulcus or pocket between the gums (gingiva) and the tooth root, and advanced to the base of the pocket until resistance is met by the first intact collagen fibers . Periodontal pocket depth measurements are commonly performed at 6 sites at each tooth yielding up to 192 sites to be measured if all teeth are present.…”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, probing errors resulting from data readout, and recording, and estimation of attachment level can be encountered. Moreover, the lack of tactile sensation is another limitation; moreover, the probe tip may pass beyond the junctional epithelium in inflamed sites …”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the accuracy and reproducibility of periodontal probing measurements is affected. Additionally, these techniques do not provide 3‐D information about the disease …”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The periodontal probe, marked in mm, is inserted into the gingival sulcus or pocket between the gums (gingiva) and the tooth root, and advanced to the base of the pocket until resistance is met by the first intact collagen fibers. 10 Periodontal pocket depth measurements are commonly performed at 6 sites at each tooth yielding up to 192 sites to be measured if all teeth are present. First generation or conventional or manual probes include Williams periodontal probe, 11,12 the World Health Organization probe, 13 University of Michigan "O" probe, 14 University of North Carolina 15 and Goldman-Fox probe.…”
Section: Current Paradigm: Conventional or Manual Periodontal Probimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the lack of tactile sensation is another limitation; moreover, the probe tip may pass beyond the junctional epithelium in inflamed sites. 10,30…”
Section: Second Generation Probes (Constant Force Probes)mentioning
Deepened periodontal pockets exert a significant pathological burden on the host and its immune system, particularly in a patient with generalized moderate to severe periodontitis. This burden is extensive and longitudinal, occurring over decades of disease development. Considerable diagnostic and prognostic successes in this regard have come from efforts to measure the depths of the pockets and their contents, including level of inflammatory mediators, cellular exudates and microbes; however, the current standard of care for measuring these pockets, periodontal probing, is an analog technology in a digital age. Measurements obtained by probing are variable, operator dependent and influenced by site-specific factors. Despite these limitations, manual probing is still the standard of care for periodontal diagnostics globally. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this technology needs to be updated to be compatible with the digital technologies currently being used to image other orofacial structures, such as maxillary sinuses, alveolar bone, nerve foramina and endodontic canals in 3 dimensions. This review aims to summarize the existing technology, as well as new imaging strategies that could be utilized for accurate evaluation of periodontal pocket dimensions.
“…Periodontal pockets are clinically assessed using a calibrated thin metal dental instrument called a periodontal probe (Table ). The periodontal probe, marked in mm, is inserted into the gingival sulcus or pocket between the gums (gingiva) and the tooth root, and advanced to the base of the pocket until resistance is met by the first intact collagen fibers . Periodontal pocket depth measurements are commonly performed at 6 sites at each tooth yielding up to 192 sites to be measured if all teeth are present.…”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, probing errors resulting from data readout, and recording, and estimation of attachment level can be encountered. Moreover, the lack of tactile sensation is another limitation; moreover, the probe tip may pass beyond the junctional epithelium in inflamed sites …”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the accuracy and reproducibility of periodontal probing measurements is affected. Additionally, these techniques do not provide 3‐D information about the disease …”
Section: Methods Of Periodontal Pocket Probingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The periodontal probe, marked in mm, is inserted into the gingival sulcus or pocket between the gums (gingiva) and the tooth root, and advanced to the base of the pocket until resistance is met by the first intact collagen fibers. 10 Periodontal pocket depth measurements are commonly performed at 6 sites at each tooth yielding up to 192 sites to be measured if all teeth are present. First generation or conventional or manual probes include Williams periodontal probe, 11,12 the World Health Organization probe, 13 University of Michigan "O" probe, 14 University of North Carolina 15 and Goldman-Fox probe.…”
Section: Current Paradigm: Conventional or Manual Periodontal Probimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the lack of tactile sensation is another limitation; moreover, the probe tip may pass beyond the junctional epithelium in inflamed sites. 10,30…”
Section: Second Generation Probes (Constant Force Probes)mentioning
Deepened periodontal pockets exert a significant pathological burden on the host and its immune system, particularly in a patient with generalized moderate to severe periodontitis. This burden is extensive and longitudinal, occurring over decades of disease development. Considerable diagnostic and prognostic successes in this regard have come from efforts to measure the depths of the pockets and their contents, including level of inflammatory mediators, cellular exudates and microbes; however, the current standard of care for measuring these pockets, periodontal probing, is an analog technology in a digital age. Measurements obtained by probing are variable, operator dependent and influenced by site-specific factors. Despite these limitations, manual probing is still the standard of care for periodontal diagnostics globally. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this technology needs to be updated to be compatible with the digital technologies currently being used to image other orofacial structures, such as maxillary sinuses, alveolar bone, nerve foramina and endodontic canals in 3 dimensions. This review aims to summarize the existing technology, as well as new imaging strategies that could be utilized for accurate evaluation of periodontal pocket dimensions.
Objectives
Accurate description of buccal bone adjacent to mandibular anterior teeth is helpful for planning and monitoring periodontal and orthodontic treatment. Low-dose cone beam computed tomography (LD-CBCT) imaging has shown promising results for very small dental structures in animals. This study asserts that LD-CBCT is sufficiently accurate to measure buccal alveolar bone adjacent to human mandibular anterior teeth.
Materials and methods
Buccal bone level adjacent to 16 mandibular anterior teeth from four human cadavers was measured radiographically using one high-dose (HD) CBCT protocol and two LD-CBCT protocols. The resulting radiographic measurements of buccal bone height (bl) and thickness (bt) were compared with reference probe and reflected-light microscopy measurements. Measurement medians and Bland–Altman plots were calculated, and a linear mixed model was used to compare raters and imaging modalities.
Results
All regression coefficients were approximately 0, indicating high interrater, intrarater, and intermodality agreement. No significant differences were found between reference measurements and CBCT protocols. The mean differences for bl measurements were 0.07 mm (rater 1 [r1]) and 0.12 mm (rater 2 [r2]) for HD-CBCT; 0.07 mm (r1) and 0.13 mm (r2) for LD-CBCT-1; and 0.02 mm (r1) and 0.01 mm (r2) for LD-CBCT-2. For bt measurements, mean differences were 0.02 mm (r1) and 0.02 mm (r2) for HD-CBCT; 0.01 mm (r1) and 0.01 mm (r2) for LD-CBCT-1; and 0.00 mm (r1) and 0.01 mm (r2) for LD-CBCT-2.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of the present study, LD-CBCT seems to be a precise method for describing buccal bone and its thickness adjacent to mandibular anterior teeth in this experimental setting.
Clinical relevance
For the first time, this study showed LD-CBCT produces excellent results and is a reliable modality for imaging buccal bone in vitro. If clinical studies confirm these results, LD-CBCT could enable better treatment planning and monitoring at a radiation dose that is far lower than that of conventional HD-CBCT but similar to that of panoramic views.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.