COMPARISON OF A CONVENTIONAL PROBE WITH ELECTRONIC AND MANUAL PRESSURE-REGULATED PROBES

WE COMPARED THE ACCURACY, consistency, time, comfort, and cost of prob ing with a conventional hand probe (CP) with 3-mm banded markings, a m anual pressure-regulated probe (MP), and two electronic probes (IP and FP). Twenty (20) examiners used all four probes on a test block to de termine accuracy; measurements compared favorably to the reference blo ck. Two calibrated examiners probed the Ramfjord teeth of 10 periodont al patients on maintenance regimens, six sites per tooth (n = 708), wi th all four probes; measurements were repeated after one week. Wilcoxo n signed-rank test showed the CP measured more deeply (P < 0.0001) tha n MP, FP, and IP with mean differences of 0.40, 0.67, and 0.58 respect ively. MP measured more deeply (P < 0.001) than FP and IP, with mean d ifferences of 0.27 and 0.18 mm. There was no difference between FP and IP. Time (min:sec) required by one examiner to perform full mouth pro bing on six subjects (minimum of 26 teeth each) was CP = 3:59; MP 4:18 ; FP = 6:16; and IP = 7:23. Subjects rated FP and IP as slightly more uncomfortable than CP or MP. Cost per 1,000 uses was computed based on available data. The IP and FP took longer to perform and cost more pe r procedure than did the CP and MP. Spearman rank-order correlation re vealed that only probe depths measured by CP and MP were well correlat ed (r(s) = 0.67). Although some statistically significant differences were found between probes, no differences were considered to be of cli nical significance when probing periodontally healthy or maintenance p atients. Electronic probes were more expensive per use and more time-c onsuming than hand probes.