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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laugisch, Oliver, Auschill, Thorsten M., Heumann, Christian, Sculean, Anton, Arweiler, Nicole B.
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