Ed. Samuel et al., IN-VITRO ACCURACY AND REPRODUCIBILITY OF AUTOMATED AND CONVENTIONAL PERIODONTAL PROBES, Journal of clinical periodontology, 24(5), 1997, pp. 340-345
The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reproducibil
ity of experienced and inexperienced examiners using 3 automated perio
dontal probes (Florida Pocket Probe, Florida Disk Probe, Peri Probe) i
n comparison with 3 conventional periodontal probes (Marquis, Williams
and EN-15 probes). Test blocks of aluminium had 30 holes of diameter
1.10 mm and depths ranging from 2.75 to 10.0 mm, machined with a toler
ance of +/-0.01 mm. 8 experienced examiners and 8 inexperienced examin
ers were selected to perform duplicate measurements on the blocks over
6 visits using each of the, 6 probes. 1 automated and 1 conventional
probe were used at each examination. The % accuracy and reproducibilit
y for each of the duplicate measurements was calculated and analysed u
sing Friedman 2-way analysis of variance and the Wilcoxon matched pair
s test. On average, all probes showed high reproducibility, with the F
lorida Disk Probe, the Florida Pocket Probe and the Williams probe ran
ked best and the other 3 probes were less reproducible. On average, al
l probes shelved a high degree of accuracy, automated probes were rank
ed best and were significantly better than conventional probes. Experi
ence had little effect on reproducibility, with only the Peri Probe sh
owing significant differences at the 5% level between the groups. Expe
rience appeared to be more important for accuracy, as experienced exam
iners were more accurate than inexperienced examiners, with significan
t differences at the 5% level for the EN-15, Florida Disk Probe and Pe
ri Probe. However, inexperienced examiners were significantly more acc
urate using the Williams probe. This in vitro study has shown that aut
omated probes offer increased accuracy over conventional probes and th
e Florida Packet and disk probes compare well with conventional probes
for reproducibility.