Mokhagul Jaruta, Lertpimonchai Attawood, Samaranayake Lakshman, Charatkulangkun Orawan
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Center of Excellence in Periodontal Disease and Dental Implant, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Eur J Dent. 2025 Feb;19(1):96-102. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1786865. Epub 2024 May 17.
This article reappraises the accuracy and factors associated with the detection of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) using the tactile method.
A total of 111 tooth sites of 7 patients scheduled for flap surgery were selected for the study. The CEJ was detected in a blind manner using the conventional tactile method with a standard periodontal probe by a single, trained examiner. A custom-made stent was prepared to standardize the measurements and the distance from a fixed reference point on the stent to the CEJ was measured before (apparent CEJ) and after (real CEJ) opening a gingival flap. To evaluate the effect of local anesthesia (LA) on the measurement error, assessment with and without LA given prior to the measurement was also evaluated. The bone crest-CEJ distance at each site was also recorded in all sites.
The measurement error of apparent versus real distance, if any, was compared using Cohen's weighted kappa coefficient (WKC) (± 1 mm).
A weak WKC (WKC = 0.539) was found between the apparent and real CEJ distance. Higher WKCs were noted at posterior and proximal sites than the anterior and buccal/lingual sites, respectively (0.840 and 0.545 vs. 0.475 and 0.488). A higher confluence of the agreements was noted when CEJ distance was measured in anesthetized sites (WKC = 0.703). Sites without bone loss showed more coronal deviation of CEJ detection, as opposed to apical deviation seen at sites with bone loss.
The conventional CEJ detection using the tactile method was relatively imprecise depending on the anatomical location of the tooth and the bone loss at the site of measurement. However, the detection accuracy improved when the sites were anesthetized. In clinical terms, our data, reported here for the first time imply that, in the absence of visual cues, posterior tooth site measurements of periodontal attachment loss were more reliable in comparison to the other sites. The bone crest level also impacted the measurement deviation to some extent, implying that, possible overestimate of clinical attachment loss may occur at sites without bone loss.
本文重新评估使用触觉法检测釉牙骨质界(CEJ)的准确性及相关因素。
选取7例计划行翻瓣手术患者的111个牙位进行研究。由一名经过培训的检查者使用标准牙周探针,采用传统触觉法以盲法检测CEJ。制备定制的支架以标准化测量,并在翻开牙龈瓣之前(表观CEJ)和之后(实际CEJ)测量从支架上固定参考点到CEJ的距离。为评估局部麻醉(LA)对测量误差的影响,还评估了测量前给予LA和未给予LA时的情况。记录所有部位每个位点的牙槽嵴顶-CEJ距离。
使用科恩加权kappa系数(WKC)(±1mm)比较表观距离与实际距离的测量误差(如有)。
表观CEJ距离与实际CEJ距离之间的WKC较弱(WKC = 0.539)。后牙和邻面位点的WKC分别高于前牙和颊/舌面位点(0.840和0.545对0.475和0.488)。在麻醉位点测量CEJ距离时,一致性的汇合度更高(WKC = 0.703)。无骨质丧失的位点在CEJ检测中显示出更多的冠向偏差,而有骨质丧失的位点则出现根向偏差。
使用触觉法进行传统的CEJ检测相对不精确,这取决于牙齿的解剖位置和测量位点的骨质丧失情况。然而,当位点麻醉后,检测准确性有所提高。从临床角度来看,我们首次在此报告的数据表明,在没有视觉线索的情况下,与其他位点相比,后牙位点牙周附着丧失的测量更可靠。牙槽嵴顶水平也在一定程度上影响测量偏差,这意味着在无骨质丧失的位点可能会高估临床附着丧失。