Bollmer B W, Sturzenberger O P, Lehnhoff R W, Bosma M L, Lang N P, Mallatt M E, Meckel A H
J Clin Periodontol. 1986 May;13(5):392-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1986.tb01480.x.
A clinical study was conducted among 200 adult males and females to compare the intrusive gingival index (GI) for estimating gingivitis with the nonintrusive and only visually applied papillary-marginal-gingivitis index (PMGI). The GI examinations were performed by a senior examiner with long experience and a junior examiner, while the PMGI was graded by only a senior examiner with long experience. A 4th examiner was included for grading bleeding sites by gentle intrusion at the orifice of the gingival crevice. Following the baseline examination by all examiners, the subjects were randomly assigned to either a group that received an oral prophylaxis immediately or to a group that received an oral prophylaxis 6 weeks after the baseline. All subjects were regraded by all examiners 4 days after the 2nd group received a prophylaxis. This delayed prophylaxis design created a difference in the responses between treatment groups. Both the GI examiners and the PMGI examiner concluded there was significantly less gingivitis in the group receiving a prophylaxis second. There were also significantly fewer bleeding sites in the group receiving a prophylaxis second as determined by both GI examiners and the bleeding-sites examiner.
对200名成年男性和女性进行了一项临床研究，以比较用于评估牙龈炎的侵入性牙龈指数（GI）与非侵入性且仅通过视觉应用的乳头-边缘-牙龈炎指数（PMGI）。GI检查由一位经验丰富的高级检查者和一位初级检查者进行，而PMGI仅由一位经验丰富的高级检查者进行分级。另外有一位检查者通过在牙龈沟开口处轻轻挤压来对出血部位进行分级。在所有检查者进行基线检查后，将受试者随机分为两组，一组立即接受口腔预防治疗，另一组在基线检查6周后接受口腔预防治疗。在第二组接受预防治疗4天后，所有检查者对所有受试者重新进行分级。这种延迟预防治疗的设计造成了治疗组之间反应的差异。GI检查者和PMGI检查者均得出结论，第二次接受预防治疗的组中牙龈炎明显较少。GI检查者和出血部位检查者均确定，第二次接受预防治疗的组中出血部位也明显较少。
