Comparison of the Efficacy of Calculus Detection Between Ultrasonic Inserts and an Explorer.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of calculus detection between a thin and curved ultrasonic inserts (UI) as compared to the Old Dominion University (ODU) 11/12 explorer. Three clinical dental hygiene faculty members were recruited to participate as calibrated raters for the presence of calculus in a group of 60 patient volunteers. Inclusion criteria were: adults aged >18 in good health, and no history of a professional prophylaxis within the past six months. Raters used an ODU 11/12 explorer, thin and curved UIs to evaluate 4 surfaces on Ramfjord index teeth for the presence of subgingival calculus. Data were analyzed for intra- and intrerrater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. Interrater reliability for calculus detection with an ODU 11/12 explorer and a thin UI was demonstrated with an Intraclass Coefficient (ICC) of .782, confidence interval (CI) 95%. An ICC of .714, CI 95% was demonstrated with the ODU 11/12 explorer and curved UIs. Intra-rater reliability was shown with mean Kappa averages in the full agreement range (Kappa=.726, n=2,160, <0.01) for use of the ODU 11/12 explorer versus the thin UI as well as versus curved UIs (Kappa=.680, n=2160, <0.01). Sensitivity was 75%, specificity 97%, PPV 81%, and NPV 94% when the thin UI was used and sensitivity measured 65%, specificity 98%, PPV 81%, and NPV 95% when curved UIs were used. Calculus detection was comparable when using the ODU 11/12 explorer, a thin UI and curved UIs on patients with limited amounts of calculus among the three clinicians. Efforts may be focused on developing tactile sensitivity for calculus detection in addition to calculus removal when using thin and curved ultrasonic instruments. Future studies should investigate calculus evaluation utilizing a variety of ultrasonic insert designs, varying amounts of calculus, and levels of clinical experience.