Chaves E S, Caffesse R G, Morrison E C, Stults D L
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
Am J Dent. 1990 Aug;3(4):167-70.
The purpose of this study was to test the diagnostic discrimination of bleeding on probing in a group of 71 patients who have been treated for periodontitis. They have been maintained over 5 years receiving prophylaxis every 3 months and clinical evaluation once a year. 1,746 teeth were used and extracted and retreated teeth were not included. The presence or absence of bleeding on probing was recorded for each tooth over the five yearly examinations. After recording the site variations between the 1st and the 5th year maintenance values, the highest value of attachment loss per tooth was selected. Teeth were considered diseased when they presented at least one site with 4 mm of probing pocket depth at the baseline (year 1) and 2 mm of attachment loss after 5 years (Criterion 1), or showed 3 mm of attachment loss after 5 years (Criterion 2). The prevalence of disease was 8.19% (143 teeth) for Criterion 1 and 19.7% (344 teeth) for Criterion 2. Bleeding on probing 2 times presented the highest sensitivity (86% Criterion 1 and 64.5% Criterion 2) and the lowest predictability (11.9% Criterion 1 and 21.4% Criterion 2). Bleeding on probing frequency = 5 times showed the highest specificity (93.6% Criterion 1 and 93.4% Criterion 2) and predictability (93.4% Criterion 1 and 81.5% Criterion 2). These results demonstrated that bleeding on probing may not be substituted for clinical attachment levels when evaluating the periodontal attachment loss over time. However, the high specificity and predictability of these tests as a negative one suggests that absence of bleeding after probing may be a good indicator of maintenance of periodontal attachment levels over time.
本研究的目的是在一组71名接受过牙周炎治疗的患者中测试探诊出血的诊断辨别能力。他们已接受了超过5年的治疗,每3个月接受一次预防治疗,每年进行一次临床评估。共使用了1746颗牙齿,未纳入已拔除和重新治疗的牙齿。在为期五年的检查中,记录每颗牙齿探诊时是否出血。在记录了第1年和第5年维护值之间的部位差异后,选择每颗牙齿附着丧失的最高值。当牙齿在基线(第1年)时至少有一个部位探诊袋深度达到4 mm,且5年后附着丧失2 mm(标准1),或5年后附着丧失3 mm(标准2)时,该牙齿被视为患病。标准1的疾病患病率为8.19%(143颗牙齿),标准2为19.7%(344颗牙齿)。探诊出血2次时敏感性最高(标准1为86%,标准2为64.5%),但预测性最低(标准1为11.9%,标准2为21.4%)。探诊出血频率为5次时特异性最高(标准1为93.6%,标准2为93.4%),预测性也最高(标准1为93.4%,标准2为81.5%)。这些结果表明,在评估随时间变化的牙周附着丧失时,探诊出血可能无法替代临床附着水平。然而,这些测试作为阴性结果时的高特异性和预测性表明,探诊后无出血可能是随时间维持牙周附着水平的良好指标。