1987
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1987.tb01545.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Constant force probing with and without a stent in untreated periodontal disease: the clinical reproducibility problem and possible sources of error

Abstract: There is presently no satisfactory method of detecting periodontal disease activity at a specified site by means of clinical measurements. This study was designed to examine the possible sources of error with regard to probing measurement reliability. Intra-examiner reproducibility of probing measurements was studied at 766 sites in 10 patients with untreated periodontitis, using a 0.25 N hinged constant force probe (a) with a stent for guidance and landmark, and (b) without stent. The stent made little differ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
56
1
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
3
56
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The method investigated in this work consistently provide similar measures with a level of disagreement that doesn’t includes clinically important discrepancies and these findings are in line with those present in literature for digitized cast models and digital models from intraoral scanning showing inter and intra concordance of 0.99 [8, 18, 19]. …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The method investigated in this work consistently provide similar measures with a level of disagreement that doesn’t includes clinically important discrepancies and these findings are in line with those present in literature for digitized cast models and digital models from intraoral scanning showing inter and intra concordance of 0.99 [8, 18, 19]. …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…By and large, what was said about manual probes also holds true for electronic probes. In fact, a great many studies were undertaken to determine the method error of second-and third-generation probes (Hassell et al, 1973;van der Velden, 1978;van der Velden and de Vries, 1980;Watts, 1987Watts, , 1989McCulloch et al, 1987;Gibbs et al, 1988;Goodson and Kondon, 1988;Magnusson et al, 1988a,b;Osborn et al, 1990Osborn et al, , 1992Becherer et al, 1993;Tupta-Veselicky et al, 1994;Wang et al, 1995;Mayfield et al, 1996). Single measurement errors between ± 0.2 mm and ± 1.0 mm were reported.…”
Section: (Iv) Assessment Of Periodontal Tissuesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may indicate a lack of agreement between ultrasonic probing and manual probing, which could be caused by several factors. The specific anatomical features measured by the two methods may be different; the probing site and angle may not be exactly the same, and so forth [63,64,65,66]. Of course, it may arise also from the model used in the algorithm.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%