Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 908
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 692-698

Comparative assessment of conventional periodontal probes and CEJ handpiece of electronic probes in the diagnosis and primary care of periodontal disease


1 Unit of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India; 2/4 Spring Grove, Handerson, Auckland, New Zealand
2 Unit of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Unit of Preventive and Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Monika Bansal
Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1994_20

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: Conventional probes (CPs) have been considered acceptable as diagnostic tools to measure probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) but are affected by multiple variables. Electronic probes (EPs) provide controlled force, digital readout and data storage in computers. The objectives were to compare the reproducibility in the measurement of PPD and CAL by CP and the newly introduced CEJ handpiece of EP and intra-examiner and inter-examiner errors done in two phases. Methods and Material: Selected 720 periodontal sites in 1st molar of 30 persons with chronic periodontitis ≤4 mm and >4 mm pockets were analysed by two trained investigators in two phases at 2 hours difference by CP and CEJ handpiece of EP. Standard deviation, mean difference, correlation coefficient, P value and student 't' test were done to analyse data. Results: The intra- examiner and inter-examiner analyses revealed that Pearson's correlation coefficient was above 0.080 and 0.722 in the ≤4 mm and >4 mm pockets, respectively. Mean difference was not statistically significant in both groups except in the intra- examiner findings in the 2nd phase. Interprobe analysis depicted a standard error of mean of <0.03 in ≤4 mm pockets, whereas it varied from 0.047–0.056 in >4 mm pockets. Conclusion: In conclusion, EP is advantageous for research purposes by providing automatic recording and long-term maintenance of data storage without the need of an assistant and patient education and motivation, whereas CP appears to be more useful in routine periodontal examination.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed248    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal