Quirynen M, Callens A, van Steenberghe D, Nys M
Catholic University Leuven, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Periodontology, Belgium.
J Periodontol. 1993 Jan;64(1):35-9. doi: 10.1902/jop.1993.64.1.35.
This study aimed to compare, in vivo, a conventional pocket probe with an automatic, computerized, constant force, electronic probe with a discrimination ability up to 0.1 mm. Sixteen adults with moderate chronic periodontitis and free of supra- and subgingival calculus participated in this study. Eight patients were examined by 2 investigators who used both the conventional and the automatic probes, for a total of 4 probings per subject. The remaining 8 patients were examined 4 times by investigator 1, twice with each probe. For each patient the Ramfjord teeth were examined and 6 sites were considered per tooth. Although the pocket depth measurements recorded by the manual probe were consistently deeper than those of the electronic probe, a good correlation was found between both recordings. Moreover, intra- and inter-examiner comparisons showed comparable standard deviations for both probes and small differences in absolute scores. The conventional probe was slightly more reproducible whereas the automated probe had the advantage of automatic registration. The results indicate that both probes can be considered as valuable in clinical practice.
本研究旨在对传统牙周袋探针与一种自动、计算机化、恒力、分辨能力达0.1毫米的电子探针进行体内比较。16名患有中度慢性牙周炎且无龈上和龈下牙石的成年人参与了本研究。8名患者由2名研究人员检查，他们同时使用传统探针和自动探针，每位受试者共进行4次探测。其余8名患者由研究人员1检查4次，每种探针各检查两次。对每位患者检查Ramfjord牙，并对每颗牙考虑6个位点。尽管手动探针记录的牙周袋深度测量值始终比电子探针的测量值更深，但两种记录之间发现有良好的相关性。此外，检查者内和检查者间的比较显示，两种探针的标准差相当，绝对分数差异较小。传统探针的重复性稍好，而自动探针具有自动记录的优势。结果表明，两种探针在临床实践中都可被视为有价值的工具。
