Cargando…
Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Precise measurements of periodontal parameters (such as pocket depths: PPD, gingival margins: GM) are important for diagnosis of periodontal disease and its treatment. Most examiners use manual millimeter-scaled probes, dependent on adequate pressure and correct readouts. Electronic probes aim to ob...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8774924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35054209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010042 |
_version_ | 1784636459916984320 |
---|---|
author | Laugisch, Oliver Auschill, Thorsten M. Heumann, Christian Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B. |
author_facet | Laugisch, Oliver Auschill, Thorsten M. Heumann, Christian Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B. |
author_sort | Laugisch, Oliver |
collection | PubMed |
description | Precise measurements of periodontal parameters (such as pocket depths: PPD, gingival margins: GM) are important for diagnosis of periodontal disease and its treatment. Most examiners use manual millimeter-scaled probes, dependent on adequate pressure and correct readouts. Electronic probes aim to objectify and facilitate the diagnostic process. This randomized controlled trial compared measurements of a standard manual (MP) with those of an electronic pressure-sensitive periodontal probe (EP) and its influence on patients’ acceptance and practicability. In 20 patients (2436 measuring points) PPD and GM were measured either with MP or EP by professionals with different levels of experience: dentist (10 patients), 7th and 10th semester dental students (5 patients each). Time needed was measured in minutes and patients’ subjective pain was evaluated by visual analogue scale. Differences were analyzed using the generalized estimating equations approach (GEE) and paired Wilcoxon tests. Mean PPD varied with ΔPPD 0.38 mm between both probes, which was significant (p < 0.001), but GM did not (ΔREC 0.07 mm, p = 0.197). There was a statistically significant correlation of both probes (Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient GM: 0.674, PPD: 0.685). Differences can be considered robust (no deviation in either direction). The comparison of time needed and pain sensitivity did not result in statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8774924 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87749242022-01-21 Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Laugisch, Oliver Auschill, Thorsten M. Heumann, Christian Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B. Diagnostics (Basel) Article Precise measurements of periodontal parameters (such as pocket depths: PPD, gingival margins: GM) are important for diagnosis of periodontal disease and its treatment. Most examiners use manual millimeter-scaled probes, dependent on adequate pressure and correct readouts. Electronic probes aim to objectify and facilitate the diagnostic process. This randomized controlled trial compared measurements of a standard manual (MP) with those of an electronic pressure-sensitive periodontal probe (EP) and its influence on patients’ acceptance and practicability. In 20 patients (2436 measuring points) PPD and GM were measured either with MP or EP by professionals with different levels of experience: dentist (10 patients), 7th and 10th semester dental students (5 patients each). Time needed was measured in minutes and patients’ subjective pain was evaluated by visual analogue scale. Differences were analyzed using the generalized estimating equations approach (GEE) and paired Wilcoxon tests. Mean PPD varied with ΔPPD 0.38 mm between both probes, which was significant (p < 0.001), but GM did not (ΔREC 0.07 mm, p = 0.197). There was a statistically significant correlation of both probes (Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient GM: 0.674, PPD: 0.685). Differences can be considered robust (no deviation in either direction). The comparison of time needed and pain sensitivity did not result in statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). MDPI 2021-12-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8774924/ /pubmed/35054209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010042 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Laugisch, Oliver Auschill, Thorsten M. Heumann, Christian Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B. Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title | Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title_full | Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title_short | Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial |
title_sort | clinical evaluation of a new electronic periodontal probe: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8774924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35054209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12010042 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT laugischoliver clinicalevaluationofanewelectronicperiodontalprobearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT auschillthorstenm clinicalevaluationofanewelectronicperiodontalprobearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT heumannchristian clinicalevaluationofanewelectronicperiodontalprobearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT sculeananton clinicalevaluationofanewelectronicperiodontalprobearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT arweilernicoleb clinicalevaluationofanewelectronicperiodontalprobearandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |