Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes.

We compared the accuracy, consistency, time, comfort, and cost of probing with a conventional hand probe (CP) with 3-mm banded markings, a manual pressure-regulated probe (MP), and two electronic probes (IP and FP). Twenty (20) examiners used all four probes on a test block to determine accuracy; measurements compared favorably to the reference block. Two calibrated examiners probed the Ramfjord teeth of 10 periodontal patients on maintenance regimens, six sites per tooth (n = 708), with all four probes; measurements were repeated after one week. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed the CP measured more deeply (P < 0.0001) than MP, FP, and IP with mean differences of 0.40, 0.67, and 0.58 respectively. MP measured more deeply (P < 0.001) than FP and IP, with mean differences of 0.27 and 0.18 mm. There was no difference between FP and IP. Time (min:sec) required by one examiner to perform full mouth probing on six subjects (minimum of 26 teeth each) was CP = 3:59; MP = 4:18; FP = 6:16; and IP = 7:23. Subjects rated FP and IP as slightly more uncomfortable than CP or MP. Cost per 1,000 uses was computed based on available data. The IP and FP took longer to perform and cost more per procedure than did the CP and MP. Spearman rank-order correlation revealed that only probe depths measured by CP and MP were well correlated (rs = 0.67). Although some statistically significant differences were found between probes, no differences were considered to be of clinical significance when probing periodontally healthy or maintenance patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)