None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
Background: The periodontal probe remains the best clinical diagnostic tool to collect information regarding the health status and the attachment level of periodontal tissues. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the intra e inter-examiner reproducibility of probing pocket depth (PPD) measurements with a manual probe. Methods: Previously accepted by an Ethical Committee and after informed consent, 20 subjects without periodontal disease were selected if they presented at least 6 teeth per quadrant without antibiotic therapy in the last 8 months. 3 calibrated students (k>0.6) at thesis level, assessed PPD from all teeth at 6 sites/tooth with William periodontal probe from the gingival margin to the bottom of the periodontal sulcus (rounded to the next 0.5mm). Initial and consecutive measurements were performed in duplicates by three examiners (n=19,692). Results: The intra-examiner agreement +/- 1mm >90% was 99.85%, 100%, and 100% for the 3 examiners, respectively. However, no significant differences in reproducibility was detected at the intre-examiner level (p<0.05). There were significant differences in the measurements of the anterior and posterior sites in the 3 examiners. No differences vestibular/lingual surfaces, mesial/distal surfaces, or superior/inferior jaws were detected. Conclusions: A high intra-examiner but low inter-exminer reproducibility of PPD in healthy individuals in vivo was detected. There were differences in PPD measurements between the anterior and posterior sites in the intra-examiner measurements for the three examiners
Interventions
The three trained examiners measured PD in the 20 patients to determine the intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility. PD is defined as the measurement in millimeters from the gingival margin to the bottom of the gingival sulcus. The study used a Williams manual periodontal probe (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 mm), introducing the probe in the interior of the gingival sulcus and following the length of the tooth until resistance was felt by the penetrating probe. Each patient had six sites probed per tooth (mesial buccal, buccal, distal buccal, mesial lingual, lingual and distal lingual), excluding third molars. The PD measurements were done using the following criteria: all measurements were rounded to the closest 0.5 mm (up or down) and when the PD measurement was exactly between two marks on the probe (except between 3 mm and 5 mm, where the middle measurement equaled 4 mm), the closest millimeter immediately above the mark was recorded. Each patient had to have a minimum of six teeth per quadrant in order to be included in the study. The initial probe depths (baseline) were taken using the following methodology: on Day 1, Examiner 1 did an initial PD (baseline); two days later (day 3), Examiner 2 did an initial PD; and on day 5, Examiner 3 did an initial PD. On day 7 the second round of PD began on the patient by Examiner 1, with Examiners 2 and 3 probing on days 9 and 11, respectively. This same methodology was used on all 20 patients until data was recorded for all of them. Each patient was probed a maximum of six times (two probes per examiner: the initial and the repeated probing). Therefore, the 20 patients were probed twice in different appointments by the three examiners. The sequence of the examiners was random (a lottery).
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
Patients participating in the study could not have: a loss of clinical attachment levels; fixed or partial prosthetics, individual crowns or orthodontia; surgical or non-surgical periodontal treatments in the last eight months; been taking antibiotics; or be pregnant.
Exclusion criteria
Presence of periodontal disease (attachment lost or bone lost)