Wang S F, Leknes K N, Zimmerman G J, Sigurdsson T J, Wikesjö U M, Selvig K A
Advanced Education Program in Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Loma Linda University, CA, USA.
J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Dec;22(12):918-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01795.x.
This study evaluated intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility for a conventional manual probe versus a computer-interfaced force-controlled periodontal probe. 2 examiners recorded probing depths (PD) and relative attachment levels (AL) at 1128 sites in 15 periodontal maintenance patients. Each site was evaluated 2x, 7 to 10 days apart by both examiners. Probing force for the electronic probe was 15 g. PD intra-examiner reproducibility (within +/- 1.0 mm) for shallow sites (PD < or = 3 mm) was 98.6% versus 91.5% for the conventional versus the electronic probe for examiner 1 and 98.5% versus 88.7% for examiner 2. Corresponding values for deeper sites (PD > 3 mm) were 96.4% versus 85.9% for examiner 1 and 95.1% versus 77.0% for examiner 2. Generally, AL intra-examiner reproducibility was 1 to 3% lower than for PD. PD inter-examiner reproducibility (within +/- 1.0 mm) was 99.2% versus 90.7% for the conventional versus the electronic probe, respectively, for shallow sites and 95.4% versus 76.9% for deeper sites. AL inter-examiner reproducibility (within +/- 1.0 mm) was 1 to 5% lower than for PD. Both intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility was higher for anterior than for posterior sites. Mean PD and AL were similar for both examiners. However, the electronic probe consistently recorded 0.1 to 0.2 mm higher values than the conventional probe. Standard deviations indicated a greater variability for electronic than for manual probing. The results suggest that intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility may not necessarily be higher with an electronic, force-controlled periodontal probe than with a conventional manual probe.
本研究评估了传统手动探针与计算机接口的力控牙周探针在检查者内和检查者间的重复性。两名检查者记录了15名牙周维护患者1128个位点的探诊深度(PD)和相对附着水平(AL)。每位检查者在相隔7至10天的时间对每个位点进行2次评估。电子探针的探诊力为15克。对于检查者1,浅位点(PD≤3mm)的PD检查者内重复性(在±1.0mm范围内),传统探针为98.6%,电子探针为91.5%;对于检查者2,相应值分别为98.5%和88.7%。对于深位点(PD>3mm),检查者1的相应值分别为96.4%和85.9%,检查者2的相应值分别为95.1%和77.0%。一般来说,AL检查者内重复性比PD低1%至3%。对于浅位点,检查者间PD重复性(在±1.0mm范围内),传统探针为99.2%,电子探针为90.7%;对于深位点,分别为95.4%和76.9%。AL检查者间重复性(在±1.0mm范围内)比PD低1%至5%。检查者内和检查者间的重复性在前牙位点均高于后牙位点。两位检查者的平均PD和AL相似。然而,电子探针始终比传统探针记录的值高0.1至0.2mm。标准差表明电子探诊比手动探诊的变异性更大。结果表明,电子力控牙周探针在检查者内和检查者间的重复性不一定高于传统手动探针。