Premium
Effects of different manual periodontal probes on periodontal measurements
Author(s) -
Holtfreter Birte,
Alte Dietrich,
Schwahn Christian,
Desvarieux Moïse,
Kocher Thomas
Publication year - 2012
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 - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01941.x
Subject(s) - periodontal probe , dentistry , medicine , crossover study , orthodontics , pathology , placebo , alternative medicine
Aim To quantify the digit preference effect for three manual periodontal probes and to calculate correction values to enable comparison of studies with equal recording protocols, but different periodontal probes. Material and Methods A prospective in vivo crossover study was conducted with a six‐sequence three‐period design. Six examiners assessed attachment loss ( AL ), probing pocket depth ( PD ) and gingiva height ( GH ) at four surfaces, full‐mouth, in six generally healthy subjects using three manual probes: PCP 11 (3‐3‐3‐2 mm increments), PCP 2 (2 mm increments), and PCPUNC 15 (1 mm increments). Results Distributions of AL , PD and GH differed between probes ( p < 0.001). Compared with PCPUNC 15, periodontal measurements coinciding with probe markings of PCP 11 and PCP 2, respectively, were preferentially named by examiners. Digit preference was most pronounced for PD , but less for AL and GH . In multilevel models, PD differed significantly between all three probes ( p < 0.05); probe‐ and examiner‐related effects were also observed for AL and GH . Correction values for pairwise combinations of probes were determined. Conclusions We provided empirical evidence and quantified the effect of probe type on periodontal measurements. Differences in probe type should be considered when comparing periodontal data within and between epidemiological studies and appropriate corrections, provided here, should be applied.