Khocht A, Chang K M
Department of Periodontics, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark 07103-2425, USA.
J Periodontol. 1998 Jan;69(1):19-25. doi: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.1.19.
The objective of this study was to compare the measurements of an electronic controlled-force probe (FP) to that of a manual controlled-force probe (SP) and a conventional probe (CP). Twelve subjects were recruited. A quadrant with no missing teeth (excluding third molars) was selected. Probing depth was measured at 6 sites per tooth (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) by two examiners (AK and KC) each using the three probes in the following sequence: FP, SP, and CP. The same measurements were repeated a week later by both examiners. The mean difference of measurements between CP and FP was 0.375 +/- 0.858 mm (P < 0.05), with 52.7% of the measurements within 0.5 mm and 80% within 1.0 mm. Correlation between measurements was high (0.7208) and significant (P < 0.001). The mean difference between SP and FP was 0.450 +/- 0.863 mm (P < 0.05), with 49.1% of the measurements within 0.5 mm and 76.9% within 1.0 mm. Correlation between measurements was high (0.7354) and significant (P < 0.001). The mean difference between CP and SP was -0.074 +/- 0.373 mm (P < 0.05), with 49.1% of the measurements within 0.5 mm and 76.9% within 1.0 mm. Correlation between measurements was high (0.95) and significant (P < 0.001). Intra-examiner differences varied for each examiner. For both examiners, the correlations for FP (AK = 0.77, KC = 0.46) were lower than that for CP (AK = 0.86, KC = 0.80) and SP (AK = 0.86, KC = 0.83). Inter-examiner comparisons showed that the correlation for FP (0.50) was lower than that for CP (0.85) and SP (0.86). The percentage of sites within 1 mm differences was less for FP (70%) than for CP (94%) or SP (94%). In conclusion, both CP and SP correlated well with FP. None of the three probes investigated completely eliminated probing errors. The CP and SP yielded more reproducible measurements than FP. Regardless of the type of probe used, probing measurements are subject to both intra- and interexaminer errors.
本研究的目的是比较电子控力探针（FP）与手动控力探针（SP）以及传统探针（CP）的测量结果。招募了12名受试者。选取一个无缺失牙（不包括第三磨牙）的象限。由两名检查者（AK和KC）分别使用三种探针按以下顺序在每颗牙的6个位点（近中颊侧、颊侧、远中颊侧、近中舌侧、舌侧和远中舌侧）测量探诊深度：FP、SP和CP。一周后，两名检查者重复相同的测量。CP与FP测量结果的平均差值为0.375±0.858毫米（P<0.05），52.7%的测量值在0.5毫米以内，80%在1.0毫米以内。测量结果之间的相关性较高（0.7208）且具有显著性（P<0.001）。SP与FP的平均差值为0.450±0.863毫米（P<0.05），49.1%的测量值在0.5毫米以内，76.9%在1.0毫米以内。测量结果之间的相关性较高（0.7354）且具有显著性（P<0.001）。CP与SP的平均差值为-0.074±0.373毫米（P<0.05），49.1%的测量值在0.5毫米以内，76.9%在1.0毫米以内。测量结果之间的相关性较高（0.95）且具有显著性（P<0.001）。每位检查者的检查者内差异各不相同。对于两位检查者而言，FP的相关性（AK = 0.77，KC = 0.46）低于CP（AK = 0.86，KC = 0.80）和SP（AK = 0.86，KC = 0.83）。检查者间比较显示，FP的相关性（0.50）低于CP（0.85）和SP（0.86）。FP在1毫米差异内的位点百分比（70%）低于CP（94%）或SP（94%）。总之，CP和SP与FP的相关性都很好。所研究的三种探针均未完全消除探诊误差。CP和SP的测量结果比FP更具可重复性。无论使用何种类型的探针，探诊测量都存在检查者内和检查者间误差。
