Premium
Improvements in methods of periodontal probing: comparison of relative attachment level data selected by outlier reduction protocols from Florida disc probe measurements
Author(s) -
Breen Harry J.,
Rogers Pauline A.,
Johnson Newell W.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290803.x
Subject(s) - outlier , mean difference , medicine , standard deviation , analysis of variance , significant difference , nuclear medicine , periodontitis , chronic periodontitis , mathematics , limits of agreement , statistics , dentistry , confidence interval
Objectives: To compare relative attachment level data (RAL) selected by the Option‐4 algorithm (O‐4), Modified Option‐4 algorithm (MO‐4), Option‐3 method (O‐3) and Double Pass method (DP) from a common dataset and to determine the most efficient method in eliminating outliers. Material and methods: A single clinician recorded full mouth RAL with the Florida Disc Probe on four occasions over 6 months in 16 subjects (mean age 48.1 years) with untreated moderate Chronic Adult Periodontitis (mean Probeable Crevice Depth 2.9 mm). Results: 2312 sites were available for analysis. Within‐visit correlation coefficients for the two selected RAL measurements were 0.98 ( P < 0.001) for O‐4, MO‐4 and O‐3 and ≥ 0.92 ( P < 0.001) for DP. The maximum mean differences of within‐visit RAL were − 0.05 mm for O‐4, − 0.03 mm for MO‐4, − 0.03 mm for O‐3 and − 0.02 mm for DP. The standard deviations of these differences were ≤ 0.44 mm for O‐4, ≤ 0.47 mm for MO‐4, ≤ 0.45 for O‐3 and ≤ 0.96 mm for DP. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMAV) showed a significant difference in RAL between visits for all methods ( P < 0.003). RMAV, investigating predetermined between‐method comparisons, showed a significant difference in RAL between visits ( P = 0.0002) and a significant interaction between the order of the selected RAL and method ( P = 0.0011). Within‐visit RAL agreement to within 1.0 mm was achieved at ≥ 99.9% sites for O‐4, ≥ 99.9% sites for MO‐4, ≥ 99.3% sites for O‐3 and ≥ 85.6% sites for DP. Remeasurement (in addition to two passes) was required over the study period at 16.6% sites for O‐4, 13.2% sites for MO‐4 and 13.0% sites for O‐3: DP, by definition, required no additional measurements. The mean site‐specific variances at all visits were ≤ 0.1 mm 2 for O‐4, MO‐4 and O‐3 and ≤ 0.44 mm 2 for DP. Conclusions: The Option‐4 algorithm was found to be the most effective outlier reduction protocol currently available, producing the most reproducible data.