Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe.

S. F. Wang, K. N. Leknes, G. J. Zimmerman, T. J. Sigurdsson, U. M. Wikesjö, K. A. Selvig

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A total of 1,128 sites in 15 periodontal maintenance patients were examined twice, 7 to 10 days apart, to evaluate reproducibility of periodontal probing by a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. Probing depths (PD) and relative attachment levels (AL) were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm with both instruments. At each visit, all sites were probed first with the conventional and then with the electronic probe. Reproducibility of PD at shallow sites (PD < or = 3 mm) by the manual probe was 59.1% for exact agreement and 98.6% within +/- 1.0 mm variation. For the electronic probe, corresponding values were 41.3% and 91.5%, respectively. Reproducibility of PD measurements at deeper sites (PD > 3 mm), was 33.0% for exact match and 96.4% within +/- 1.0 mm for the manual and, correspondingly, 31.7% and 85.9% for the electronic probe. Reproducibility of AL followed a similar pattern, but was consistently lower than for PD. Reproducibility was consistently higher for anterior than for posterior sites and, for some comparisons, higher in the maxilla than in the mandible. These differences were smaller for the manual than for the electronic probe. Time required to complete the probing was longer for the conventional probe than for the electronic instrument. Under the prevailing study conditions, the automated force-controlled electronic probe failed to offer significant advantages over the conventional manual probe.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-46
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of periodontology
Volume66
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

Fingerprint

Maxilla
Mandible

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Cite this

Wang, S. F., Leknes, K. N., Zimmerman, G. J., Sigurdsson, T. J., Wikesjö, U. M., & Selvig, K. A. (1995). Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. Journal of periodontology, 66(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1995.66.1.38

Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. / Wang, S. F.; Leknes, K. N.; Zimmerman, G. J.; Sigurdsson, T. J.; Wikesjö, U. M.; Selvig, K. A.

In: Journal of periodontology, Vol. 66, No. 1, 01.01.1995, p. 38-46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, S. F. ; Leknes, K. N. ; Zimmerman, G. J. ; Sigurdsson, T. J. ; Wikesjö, U. M. ; Selvig, K. A. / Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. In: Journal of periodontology. 1995 ; Vol. 66, No. 1. pp. 38-46.
@article{565993a72fc5461ea1569f8708b08eb8,
title = "Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe.",
abstract = "A total of 1,128 sites in 15 periodontal maintenance patients were examined twice, 7 to 10 days apart, to evaluate reproducibility of periodontal probing by a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. Probing depths (PD) and relative attachment levels (AL) were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm with both instruments. At each visit, all sites were probed first with the conventional and then with the electronic probe. Reproducibility of PD at shallow sites (PD < or = 3 mm) by the manual probe was 59.1{\%} for exact agreement and 98.6{\%} within +/- 1.0 mm variation. For the electronic probe, corresponding values were 41.3{\%} and 91.5{\%}, respectively. Reproducibility of PD measurements at deeper sites (PD > 3 mm), was 33.0{\%} for exact match and 96.4{\%} within +/- 1.0 mm for the manual and, correspondingly, 31.7{\%} and 85.9{\%} for the electronic probe. Reproducibility of AL followed a similar pattern, but was consistently lower than for PD. Reproducibility was consistently higher for anterior than for posterior sites and, for some comparisons, higher in the maxilla than in the mandible. These differences were smaller for the manual than for the electronic probe. Time required to complete the probing was longer for the conventional probe than for the electronic instrument. Under the prevailing study conditions, the automated force-controlled electronic probe failed to offer significant advantages over the conventional manual probe.",
author = "Wang, {S. F.} and Leknes, {K. N.} and Zimmerman, {G. J.} and Sigurdsson, {T. J.} and Wikesj{\"o}, {U. M.} and Selvig, {K. A.}",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1902/jop.1995.66.1.38",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "38--46",
journal = "Journal of Periodontology",
issn = "0022-3492",
publisher = "American Academy of Periodontology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe.

AU - Wang, S. F.

AU - Leknes, K. N.

AU - Zimmerman, G. J.

AU - Sigurdsson, T. J.

AU - Wikesjö, U. M.

AU - Selvig, K. A.

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - A total of 1,128 sites in 15 periodontal maintenance patients were examined twice, 7 to 10 days apart, to evaluate reproducibility of periodontal probing by a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. Probing depths (PD) and relative attachment levels (AL) were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm with both instruments. At each visit, all sites were probed first with the conventional and then with the electronic probe. Reproducibility of PD at shallow sites (PD < or = 3 mm) by the manual probe was 59.1% for exact agreement and 98.6% within +/- 1.0 mm variation. For the electronic probe, corresponding values were 41.3% and 91.5%, respectively. Reproducibility of PD measurements at deeper sites (PD > 3 mm), was 33.0% for exact match and 96.4% within +/- 1.0 mm for the manual and, correspondingly, 31.7% and 85.9% for the electronic probe. Reproducibility of AL followed a similar pattern, but was consistently lower than for PD. Reproducibility was consistently higher for anterior than for posterior sites and, for some comparisons, higher in the maxilla than in the mandible. These differences were smaller for the manual than for the electronic probe. Time required to complete the probing was longer for the conventional probe than for the electronic instrument. Under the prevailing study conditions, the automated force-controlled electronic probe failed to offer significant advantages over the conventional manual probe.

AB - A total of 1,128 sites in 15 periodontal maintenance patients were examined twice, 7 to 10 days apart, to evaluate reproducibility of periodontal probing by a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe. Probing depths (PD) and relative attachment levels (AL) were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm with both instruments. At each visit, all sites were probed first with the conventional and then with the electronic probe. Reproducibility of PD at shallow sites (PD < or = 3 mm) by the manual probe was 59.1% for exact agreement and 98.6% within +/- 1.0 mm variation. For the electronic probe, corresponding values were 41.3% and 91.5%, respectively. Reproducibility of PD measurements at deeper sites (PD > 3 mm), was 33.0% for exact match and 96.4% within +/- 1.0 mm for the manual and, correspondingly, 31.7% and 85.9% for the electronic probe. Reproducibility of AL followed a similar pattern, but was consistently lower than for PD. Reproducibility was consistently higher for anterior than for posterior sites and, for some comparisons, higher in the maxilla than in the mandible. These differences were smaller for the manual than for the electronic probe. Time required to complete the probing was longer for the conventional probe than for the electronic instrument. Under the prevailing study conditions, the automated force-controlled electronic probe failed to offer significant advantages over the conventional manual probe.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029194457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029194457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1902/jop.1995.66.1.38

DO - 10.1902/jop.1995.66.1.38

M3 - Article

C2 - 7891248

AN - SCOPUS:0029194457

VL - 66

SP - 38

EP - 46

JO - Journal of Periodontology

JF - Journal of Periodontology

SN - 0022-3492

IS - 1

ER -