 |
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2021, vol. 27, issue4
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021274.4087
Published online: 12 November 2021
Original article
J of IMAB. 2021 Oct-Dec;27(4):4087-4091
EVALUATION OF AN ELECTRONIC PERIODONTAL PROBE VERSUS A MANUAL PROBE IN THE PERIODONTAL DIAGNOSIS OF CHILDREN AGED 12-14 YEARS
Hristina Tankova
, Zornitsa Lazarova, Maya Rashkova,
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of dental medicine, Medical University – Sofia, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Objective: The purpose of the trial is to comparatively analyze an electronic, pressure-calibrated probe third generation Parometer (Orange) and a standard, manual measurement probe WHO 621 (C type) in the context of taking periodontal variables when assessing periodontal status in childhood.
Materials and methods: The subject of the study were 28 children aged between 12 and 14 years (12 boys and 16 girls). All patients were clinically examined, and the data were recorded on a specially prepared card. The recorded clinical variables contain: Assessment of oral hygiene habits (type of toothbrush, frequency of brushing); OHI as per Green Vermillion; Registration of dental status; Depth of gingival sulcus (on all teeth) with both types of probes; BOP (bleeding on probing), percentage of bleeding units with both types of probes; Taking into account the complete time needed to take the findings and the sensation of pain experienced by a digital rank scale during probing.
Results and conclusion: The average depth of gingival sulcus measured with a mechanical periodontal probe was 1.62 mm, and with an electronic one - 1.38 mm (p <0.05). Values for BOP with both types of probes showed an average of 0.30 ± 0.29, which is 30% of all bleeding units examined (p> 0.05). The time for recording the periodontal indices with both probes is, on average, 10 minutes. In both probes, the discomfort of about grade 4 was observed according to the ranking scale used to read sensitivity (p <0.05). There is a more pronounced sensitivity when using an electronic periodontal probe.
Keywords: Gingivitis, gingival sulcus, periodontal indices,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 775 KB/
Please cite this article as: Tankova T, Lazarova Z, Rashkova M. Evaluation of an electronic periodontal probe versus a manual probe in the periodontal diagnosis of children aged 12-14 years. J of IMAB. 2021 Oct-Dec;27(4):4087-4091. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2021274.4087
Correspondence to: Dr. Hristina Ivanova Tankova-Zlateva, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University - Sofia; 1, Georgi Sofiyski Str., Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: la_svetichi@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Rashkova M. Periodontal diseases in children and adolescents. Sofia: Direct Services; 2016. 98p
2. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Carranza's clinical periodontology. 10th ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Saunders Elsevier. 2006. p.550. [Internet]
3. Pihlstrom BL. Measurement of attachment level in clinical trials: probing methods. J Periodontol. 1992 Dec;63(12 Suppl):1072-7. [PubMed]
4. Gibbs CH, Hirschfeld JW, Lee JG, Low SB, Magnusson I, Thousand RR, Yerneni P, Clark WB. Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe—the Florida probe. J Clin Periodontol. 1988 Feb;15(2):137-44. [PubMed]
5. Canakci V, Canakci CF. Pain levels in patients during periodontal probing and mechanical non-surgical therapy. Clin Oral Investig. 2007 Dec;11(4):377-83. [PubMed]
6. Heins PJ, Karpinia KA, Maruniak JW, Moorhead JE, Gibbs CH. Pain threshold values during periodontal probing: assessment of maxillary incisor and molar sites. J Periodontol. 1998 Jul;69(7):812-8. [PubMed]
7. Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: Comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-17. [PubMed]
8. Mitova N, Rashkova M, Tankova Hr. [Gingival sulcus depth in healthy children with teeth in eruption.] [in Bulgarian] Problems of dental medicine. 2017; 43(2):79-86.
9. Emmerling H, Standley E. Probing into Probes, Measuring the Choices. CDHA Journal. 2010; 25:15-19.
10. Hefti AF. Periodontal probing. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997; 8(3):336-56. [PubMed]
11. Weinberg MA, Westphal C, Palat M, Froum S, Schoor R. Comprehensive Periodontics for the Dental Hygienist. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall. Mar 27, 2010. [Internet]
12. Renatus A, Trentzsch L, Schцnfelder A, Schwarzenberger F, Jentsch H. Evaluation of an Electronic Periodontal Probe Versus a Manual Probe. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZH03-ZH07. [PubMed]
13. Niederman R. Manual and electronic probes have similar reliability in the measurement of untreated periodontitis. Evid Based Dent. 2009; 10(2):39. [PubMed]
14. Rams TE, Slots J. Comparison of two pressure-sensitive periodontal probes and a manual periodontal probe in shallow and deep pockets. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993 Dec;13(6):520-9. [PubMed]
15. Trombelli L, Farina R, Silva CO, Tatakis DN. Plaque-induced gingivitis: Case definition and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S44-S67. [PubMed]
16. Mühlemann HR, Son S. Gingival sulcus bleeding--a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta. 1971 Oct;15(2):107-13. [PubMed]
17. Greenstein G, Caton J, Polson AM. Histologic characteristics associated with bleeding after probing and visual signs of inflammation. J Periodontol. 1981 Aug;52(8):420-5. [PubMed].
Received: 27 April 2021
Published online: 12 November 2021