ABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of the present study was to measure the accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces in simulated assessments of periodontal pocket depth. The study included experienced and inexperienced examiners and used manual and pressure-sensitive probes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one participants were divided into seven groups and asked to probe selected anterior and posterior sites with three different probes (Williams 14W, Chapple UB-CF-15, and Vivacare TPS probes). The model was positioned on a digital electronic balance to measure force, which was recorded initially and after 15 min. Probe preferences were recorded. Accuracy was measured by comparing to a standardized 25 g force, and reproducibility was calculated for all duplicate measurements. RESULTS: The Vivacare probe produced the most accurate and most reproducible forces, whereas the Williams probe produced the least accurate and least reproducible forces. Probe forces were lighter at anterior sites compared to posterior sites at baseline. Probe forces were reduced at both sites after 15 min compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Vivacare TPS periodontal probes are more accurate and reproducible than Chapple and Williams probes. Many clinicians in this study preferred the Chapple probe.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the accuracy and reproducibility of three periodontal probes. To eliminate environment- or examiner-related probing errors, two aluminum blocks with predrilled holes of varying depths were examined by participants who had been trained in probing before the study. This methodology improved the likelihood that any probing errors identified were generated by the probes themselves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three probes, Williams 14 W (Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., LLC, UK), Chapple UB-CF-15 (Implantium, Shrewsbury, UK), and Vivacare TPS (Ivoclar Vivadent, Enderby, UK), were randomly distributed to 23 participants (9 males and 14 females; mean age: 31.35 years). Participants measured 30 holes in two aluminum blocks, average 20 days, SD = 341.05. For each hole, the mean measured depth was calculated for each participant and compared to the true depth. Intra- and inter-examiner accuracy and reproducibility for each of the duplicate measurements were calculated. Data were analyzed by paired-samples t-test with the SPSS 18 software package (IBM Portsmouth, UK). A p-value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. Tables were constructed from the data. RESULTS: When used by participants, the Williams 14 W probe was reproducible but not necessarily accurate; Vivacare TPS was neither accurate nor reproducible; and Chapple UBCF-15 was both accurate and reproducible. CONCLUSION: Depth measurements with the Chapple UB-CF-15 probe were more accurate and reproducible compared to measurements with the Vivacare TPS and Williams 14 W probes. This in vitro model may be useful for intra-examiner calibration or clinician training prior to the clinical evaluation of patients or in longitudinal studies involving periodontal evaluation.
