Precise measurements of periodontal parameters (such as pocket depths: PPD, gingival margins: GM) are important for diagnosis of periodontal disease and its treatment. Most examiners use manual millimeter-scaled probes, dependent on adequate pressure and correct readouts. Electronic probes aim to objectify and facilitate the diagnostic process. This randomized controlled trial compared measurements of a standard manual (MP) with those of an electronic pressure-sensitive periodontal probe (EP) and its influence on patients' acceptance and practicability. In 20 patients (2436 measuring points) PPD and GM were measured either with MP or EP by professionals with different levels of experience: dentist (10 patients), 7th and 10th semester dental students (5 patients each). Time needed was measured in minutes and patients' subjective pain was evaluated by visual analogue scale. Differences were analyzed using the generalized estimating equations approach (GEE) and paired Wilcoxon tests. Mean PPD varied with ΔPPD 0.38 mm between both probes, which was significant (p < 0.001), but GM did not (ΔREC 0.07 mm, p = 0.197). There was a statistically significant correlation of both probes (Spearman's rho correlation coefficient GM: 0.674, PPD: 0.685). Differences can be considered robust (no deviation in either direction). The comparison of time needed and pain sensitivity did not result in statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).
Keywords: clinical attachment loss; periodontal diagnostics; periodontal disease; periodontitis; probing pocket depth.