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.
Keywords: Clinical attachment level; conventional probe; electronic probe; pocket probing depth.
Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care.