Antonio Renatus1, Lars Trentzsch1, Antje Schönfelder2, Fabian Schwarzenberger3, Holger Jentsch4. 1. Faculty, Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, Centre for Periodontology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany . 2. Student, Faculty of Biologie, Pharmacy and Psychology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany . 3. Professor, HTW Dresden, Faculty of Informatics/Mathematics, Dresden, Saxony, Germany . 4. Professor, Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, Centre for Periodontology, University Hospital of Leipzig , Germany .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of periodontal diseases requires reco-rding of clinical and periodontal variables. Possible measurement errors in recording the periodontal findings are dependent on the measurement method. AIM: The purpose of the trial was to investigate an electronic, pressure-calibrated probe compared with a standard, manual measurement probe used to take periodontal variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 25 subjects suffering from periodontal disease. Their findings were taken by two users on a randomized basis using a standard probe and an electronic, pressure calibrated probe, at an interval of 24 hours. The recorded clinical variables contained Pocket Depth (PD), Attachment Level (AL), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), the complete time needed to take the findings and the sensation of pain experienced by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The data were statistically analyzed using the paired t-test. RESULTS: The measurement values (24 patients) for PD (p=0.03) and BOP (p=0.01) indicated a significant difference (paired t test, p>0.05), while there was no statistical difference for AL (p=0.064). A classification of PD into groups of 1-3mm, 4-6mm and ≥7mm showed that the manual method measured higher values than the electronic method (p=0.001). The measurement values did not reveal any significant differences (p>0.05) with respect to the total time needed to take findings and the measurement time for PD/AL. There was a significant difference (Wilcoxon-test, p<0.05) in VAS values (p=0.048) and in terms of the time needed to record the findings for BOP (p=0.004). CONCLUSION: It can be assumed that the electronic probe should mainly be used in the supportive periodontal therapy. Present study showed that the use of a standard manual probe is essential to review conspicuous or unclear measurement values, or when treating deep pockets higher than 7mm.
INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of periodontal diseases requires reco-rding of clinical and periodontal variables. Possible measurement errors in recording the periodontal findings are dependent on the measurement method. AIM: The purpose of the trial was to investigate an electronic, pressure-calibrated probe compared with a standard, manual measurement probe used to take periodontal variables. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 25 subjects suffering from periodontal disease. Their findings were taken by two users on a randomized basis using a standard probe and an electronic, pressure calibrated probe, at an interval of 24 hours. The recorded clinical variables contained Pocket Depth (PD), Attachment Level (AL), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), the complete time needed to take the findings and the sensation of pain experienced by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The data were statistically analyzed using the paired t-test. RESULTS: The measurement values (24 patients) for PD (p=0.03) and BOP (p=0.01) indicated a significant difference (paired t test, p>0.05), while there was no statistical difference for AL (p=0.064). A classification of PD into groups of 1-3mm, 4-6mm and ≥7mm showed that the manual method measured higher values than the electronic method (p=0.001). The measurement values did not reveal any significant differences (p>0.05) with respect to the total time needed to take findings and the measurement time for PD/AL. There was a significant difference (Wilcoxon-test, p<0.05) in VAS values (p=0.048) and in terms of the time needed to record the findings for BOP (p=0.004). CONCLUSION: It can be assumed that the electronic probe should mainly be used in the supportive periodontal therapy. Present study showed that the use of a standard manual probe is essential to review conspicuous or unclear measurement values, or when treating deep pockets higher than 7mm.