Keywords
Periodontal diseases
Periodontics
How to Cite
Funding data
-
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Grant numbers Finance Code 001
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the millimeter distances and active tip diameters of different periodontal probes. Methods: Two types of periodontal probes were analyzed (North Carolina (15-UNC) and PCP-12). Two manufacturers were selected for each probe type. Digital images of the probes were obtained and the distances were measured using a software program. The diameter of the active tip was measured using a digital caliper. Both variables were measured by two trained and calibrated examiners. The data were analyzed using the Bland-Altman method and two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: A comparison of measurements between the 15UNC and PCP-12 probes showed a significant difference in all millimeter markings. The 15-UNC probe showed differences between the 3 and 12 mm markings. The PCP-12 probe only showed differences between the marks at the 12 mm mark. The 15-UNC probe had a similar active tip diameter between the two manufacturers. The PCP-12 probe showed a significant difference between the two manufacturers. Both types of probes had similar active tip diameters when compared by the two manufacturers. Conclusion: There was no standardization in relation to millimeter marks and tip diameters of the two types of periodontal probes produced by the two different manufacturers. The probe types exhibited little variability.
References
Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, et al. Global, Regional, and National Prevalence, Incidence, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Oral Conditions for 195 Countries, 1990-2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors. J Dent Res. 2017 Apr;96(4):380-7. doi: 10.1177/0022034517693566.
Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019 Jul;394(10194):249-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8. Erratum in: Lancet. 2019 Sep;394(10203):1010.
Salvi GE, Roccuzzo A, Imber JC, Stähli A, Klinge B, Lang NP. Clinical periodontal diagnosis. Periodontol 2000. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1111/prd.12487.
Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, Chapple ILC, Jepsen S, Kornman KS, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S1-8. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12935.
Papapanou PN, Sanz M, Buduneli N, Dietrich T, Feres M, Fine DH, et al. Periodontitis: consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S173-82. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0721.
Kingman A, Susin C, Albandar JM. Effect of partial recording protocols on severity estimates of periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Aug;35(8):659-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01243.x.
Susin C, Kingman A, Albandar JM. Effect of partial recording protocols on estimates of prevalence of periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2005 Feb;76(2):262-7. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.2.262.
Van der Zee E, Davies EH, Newman HN. Marking width, calibration from tip and tine diameter of periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1991 Aug;18(7):516-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb00083.x.
Erriu M, Genta G, Pili FM, Barbato G, Denotti G, Levi R. Probing depth in periodontal pockets: In vitro evaluation of contributions to variability due to probe type and operator skill. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2015 Oct;229(10):743-9. doi: 10.1177/0954411915606170.
Garnick JJ, Silverstein L. Periodontal probing: probe tip diameter. J Periodontol. 2000 Jan;71(1):96-103. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.1.96.
Chung HM, Park JY, Ko KA, Kim CS, Choi SH, Lee JS. Periodontal probing on digital images compared to clinical measurements in periodontitis patients. Sci Rep. 2022 Jan;12(1):1616. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04695-6.
Elashiry M, Meghil MM, Arce RM, Cutler CW. From manual periodontal probing to digital 3-D imaging to endoscopic capillaroscopy: recent advances in periodontal disease diagnosis. J Periodontal Res. 2019 Feb;54(1):1-9. doi: 10.1111/jre.12585.
Al Shayeb KN, Turner W, Gillam DG. Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements. Saudi Dent J. 2014 Apr;26(2):50-5. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2014.02.001.
Barendregt DS, Van der Velden U, Timmerman MF, van der Weijden GA. Comparison of two automated periodontal probes and two probes with a conventional readout in periodontal maintenance patients. J Clin Periodontol. 2006 Apr;33(4):276-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00900.x.
Buduneli E, Aksoy O, Köse T, Atilla G. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Oct;31(10):815-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00560.x.
Holtfreter B, Alte D, Schwahn C, Desvarieux M, Kocher T. Effects of different manual periodontal probes on periodontal measurements. J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Nov;39(11):1032-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01941.x.
Scalzo MTA, Abreu MHNG, Matta-Machado ATG, Martins RC. Oral health in Brazil: What were the dental procedures performed in Primary Health Care? PLoS One. 2022 Jan;17(1):e0263257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263257.
Bulthuis HM, Barendregt DS, Timmerman MF, Loos BG, van der Velden U. Probe penetration in relation to the connective tissue attachment level: influence of tine shape and probing force. J Clin Periodontol. 1998 May;25(5):417-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02465.x.
Kour A, Kumar A, Puri K, Khatri M, Bansal M, Gupta G. Comparative evaluation of probing depth and clinical attachment level using a manual probe and Florida probe. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2016 May-Jun;20(3):299-306. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.181241.
Freed HK, Gapper RL, Kalkwarf KL. Evaluation of periodontal probing forces. J Periodontol. 1983 Aug;54(8):488-92. doi: 10.1902/jop.1983.54.8.488.
Mayfield L, Bratthall G, Attström R. Periodontal probe precision using 4 different periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1996 Feb;23(2):76-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00538.x.
Oringer RJ, Fiorellini JP, Koch GG, Sharp TJ, Nevins ML, Davis GH, et al. Comparison of manual and automated probing in an untreated periodontitis population. J Periodontol. 1997 Dec;68(12):1156-62. doi: 10.1902/jop.1997.68.12.1156.
Osborn J, Stoltenberg J, Huso B, Aeppli D, Pihlstrom B. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe. J Periodontol. 1990 Aug;61(8):497-503. doi: 10.1902/jop.1990.61.8.497.
Samuel ED, Griffiths GS, Petrie A. In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes. J Clin Periodontol. 1997 May;24(5):340-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb00767.x.
Reddy MS, Palcanis KG, Geurs NC. A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements. J Clin Periodontol. 1997 Dec;24(12):920-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb01212.x.
Al Shayeb KN, Turner W, Gillam DG. In-vitro accuracy and reproducibility evaluation of probing depth measurements of selected periodontal probes. Saudi Dent J. 2014 Jan;26(1):19-24. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2013.11.001.
Chambrone L, Armitage GC. Commentary: statistical significance versus clinical relevance in periodontal research: implications for clinical practice. J Periodontol. 2016 Jun;87(6):613-6. doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.150554.
Barendregt DS, Van der Velden U, Reiker J, Loos BG. Clinical evaluation of tine shape of 3 periodontal probes using 2 probing forces. J Clin Periodontol. 1996 Apr;23(4):397-402. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00563.x.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Ana Cristina Kovalik, Alessandra Carla Sousa Girardi, Naiara Vendrami, Fabio André dos Santos
Downloads
