[Closed or open periodontitis treatment. A review of the literature]. / Geschlossene oder offene Parodontitisbehandlung. Eine Literaturübersicht.

Clinical data characterizing the results of non-surgical, conservative versus surgical modalities of periodontal treatment are presented and summarized, as they appeared in the international literature. Primarily, the clinical disease status prior to treatment is discussed. Thereafter, the therapeutic success of either modality was measured on the basis of the following parameters: reduction of probing depth, changes in attachment levels, cleanliness of root surfaces, elimination of inflammation, and longlasting tooth survival. The literature review revealed that the choice of either treatment modality influences the therapeutic success only indirectly. More important is that the diseased root surface is meticulously cleaned from all bacterial debris. In the presence of shallow (1 to 3 mm) and medium-sized (4 to 6 mm) pockets, surgical and non-surgical treatment provides equally good results. Deep pockets (7 mm or deeper) and, in particular, crater-like bony pockets as well as furcation involvement respond with better results, if surgical treatment is assigned. In the long run, however, therapeutic success can be secured only by means of a consequent periodical recall and with support of the patient's willingness to perform optimal oral hygiene.

[Comparative probing with an electronic and a manual periodontal probe]. / Vergleichende Sondierung mit einer elektronischen und einer manuellen Parodontalsonde.

The goal of this study was to compare a new electronic probe (Peri-Probe) which uses a defined probing force and allows measurement of probing depth in 0.1 mm increments, with a standard manual probe. 24 sites were probed in each of 12 subjects (6 treated for periodontal disease and 6 untreated). Duplicate measurements with the electronic probe were made with the probe tip remaining in contact with gingival tissue. Similarly executed measurements using the manual probe followed during the same appointment. One week later, measurements were repeated in reversed sequence. Duplicate measurements (within appointments) resulted in measurement errors of +/- 0.18 mm for the manual probe. 98.6% of the electronic measurements and 99.3% of the manual measurements differed by < 1 mm. Replicated duplicated measurements (between appointments) resulted in measurements errors of +/- 0.86 mm for the electronic probe and +/- 0.65 mm for the manual probe. A difference of < 1 mm was found in 89.2% and 95.5% of the measurement repetitions with the electronic probe and the manual probe, respectively. The electronic probe exhibited greater variation of measurements than the manual probe. In addition, probing using the electronic instrument was more arduous than using the manual instrument, resulting in less reliable measurements.