• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用探针和超声工作尖的口腔卫生士对牙结石检出情况的比较

Comparison of calculus detection among dental hygienists using an explorer and ultrasonic insert.

作者信息

Partido Brian B, Webb Chadleo A, Carr Michele P

机构信息

Division of Dental Hygiene, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

出版信息

Int J Dent Hyg. 2019 May;17(2):192-198. doi: 10.1111/idh.12388. Epub 2019 Feb 19.

DOI:10.1111/idh.12388
PMID:30714331
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Periodontal therapy disrupts the biofilm harbouring calculus that triggers inflammation. The explorer is primarily used for calculus detection, and the ultrasonic instrument is primarily used for calculus removal. The efficiency in dental hygiene care may improve if the ultrasonic instrument could be used in both calculus detection and removal.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to validate the effectiveness of calculus detection between the Thinsert® ultrasonic insert and the 11/12 explorer.

METHODS

Upon IRB approval, this validation study involved three dental hygiene faculty from the Ohio State University Dental Hygiene Program and 30 patient participants from the Ohio State University community. Using both instruments, calculus was evaluated on Ramfjord index teeth and on four possible surfaces per tooth. Data were analysed to evaluate for interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

For interrater reliability, the average measure of intraclass coefficient (ICC) value was 0.782 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.749-0.810 (F  = 4.852, P < 0.01). For intrarater reliability, mean Kappa averages were in the full agreement range (κ = 0.726, n = 2160, P < 0.01). When using the Thinsert® for calculus detection, the sensitivity was 75%, specificity was 97%, PPV was 81%, and NPV was 94%.

CONCLUSION

Since calculus evaluation was comparable when using the ODU 11/12 explorer and the Thinsert®, efforts can be focused on developing the tactile sensitivity when using the Thinsert® ultrasonic instrument in the assessment, treatment, and maintenance of periodontal disease and the support of oral health. The efficiency in dental hygiene care may improve by using the Thinsert® ultrasonic instrument in both the detection and removal of calculus.

摘要

引言

牙周治疗会破坏含有引发炎症的牙结石的生物膜。探针主要用于牙结石检测,而超声器械主要用于去除牙结石。如果超声器械能够同时用于牙结石检测和去除,那么口腔卫生保健的效率可能会提高。

目的

本研究的目的是验证Thinsert®超声探头与11/12号探针在牙结石检测方面的有效性。

方法

经机构审查委员会批准,本验证性研究纳入了俄亥俄州立大学口腔卫生项目的三名口腔卫生教员以及来自俄亥俄州立大学校区的30名患者参与者。使用这两种器械,对Ramfjord指数牙以及每颗牙的四个可能表面进行牙结石评估。对数据进行分析,以评估评分者间信度、评分者内信度、敏感性和特异性。

结果

对于评分者间信度,组内相关系数(ICC)值的平均测量值为0.782,95%置信区间(CI)为0.749 - 0.810(F = 4.852,P < 0.01)。对于评分者内信度,平均Kappa值处于完全一致范围内(κ = 0.726,n = 2160,P < 0.01)。使用Thinsert®进行牙结石检测时,敏感性为75%,特异性为97%,阳性预测值为81%,阴性预测值为94%。

结论

由于使用ODU 11/12号探针和Thinsert®进行牙结石评估的结果相当,因此在使用Thinsert®超声器械评估、治疗和维护牙周疾病以及支持口腔健康时,可以将重点放在提高触觉敏感性上。通过使用Thinsert®超声器械进行牙结石的检测和去除,口腔卫生保健的效率可能会提高。

相似文献

1
Comparison of calculus detection among dental hygienists using an explorer and ultrasonic insert.使用探针和超声工作尖的口腔卫生士对牙结石检出情况的比较
Int J Dent Hyg. 2019 May;17(2):192-198. doi: 10.1111/idh.12388. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
2
Comparison of the Efficacy of Calculus Detection Between Ultrasonic Inserts and an Explorer.超声插入物与探针在牙石检测功效上的比较
J Dent Hyg. 2018 Dec;92(6):33-39.
3
Calculus detection calibration among dental hygiene faculty members utilizing dental endoscopy: a pilot study.利用牙科内窥镜对口腔卫生教员进行牙结石检测校准:一项试点研究。
J Dent Educ. 2015 Feb;79(2):124-32.
4
Ultrasonic Instrumentation Instruction in Dental Hygiene Programs in the United States.美国口腔卫生项目中的超声仪器操作指南
J Dent Hyg. 2016 Apr;90(2):135-42.
5
Endoscopic vs. tactile evaluation of subgingival calculus.龈下牙石的内镜评估与触觉评估
J Dent Hyg. 2014 Aug;88(4):229-36.
6
Dental hygienists' perception of preparation and use for ultrasonic instrumentation.牙科保健员对超声器械的准备和使用的认知。
Int J Dent Hyg. 2015 Feb;13(1):30-41. doi: 10.1111/idh.12092. Epub 2014 Jul 14.
7
Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonic and hand scaling for the removal of subgingival plaque and calculus.超声洁治和手工洁治在清除龈下菌斑和牙石方面的比较效果。
J Periodontol. 1987 Jan;58(1):9-18. doi: 10.1902/jop.1987.58.1.9.
8
Dental Hygiene Faculty Calibration Using Two Accepted Standards for Calculus Detection: A Pilot Study.使用两种公认的牙结石检测标准对口腔卫生专业教师进行校准:一项试点研究。
J Dent Educ. 2016 Aug;80(8):975-82.
9
The effectiveness of hand versus ultrasonic instrumentation in open flap root planing.手工器械与超声器械在开放性龈下刮治中的效果比较
J Periodontol. 1984 Dec;55(12):697-703. doi: 10.1902/jop.1984.55.12.697.
10
The effects of two ultrasonic instruments on root surfaces.两种超声器械对牙根表面的影响。
J Periodontol. 1975 Feb;46(2):119-26. doi: 10.1902/jop.1975.46.2.119.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluating ultrasonic instrumentation curricular change: an observational comparison study.评估超声仪器课程改革:一项观察性对比研究。
Can J Dent Hyg. 2022 Oct 1;56(3):115-122. eCollection 2022 Oct.