1. Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of WHO Periodontal Probe and #11/12 Dental Explorer for Subgingival Calculus Detection
- Author
-
Marc P Manos and Thomas E. Rams
- Subjects
Typodont ,Periodontist ,business.industry ,Calculus (dental) ,Subgingival calculus ,Dentistry ,030206 dentistry ,medicine.disease ,Periodontal probe ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Premolar ,medicine ,business ,General Dentistry ,Mandibular molar ,Dental explorer - Abstract
AIM The World Health Organization (WHO) periodontal probe is recommended for epidemiologic surveys and periodontal screening, but its ability to identify subgingival dental calculus (DC) relative to a #11/12 explorer is not known. This study compared in vitro the ability of the WHO probe and a #11/12 explorer to detect subgingival DC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three typodont models with randomly distributed artificial DC on mandibular molar and premolar root surfaces were assessed with a WHO periodontal probe and a #11/12 explorer by two periodontists. The diagnostic performance of the two instruments for subgingival DC detection was compared using 2 × 2 contingency table analysis. RESULTS A #11/12 explorer provided better reproducibility, a higher level of sensitivity, higher positive predictive values, higher negative predictive values, and greater overall accuracy (diagnostic effectiveness) (76.9% vs. 68.5% for the first periodontist; 87.0% vs. 75.0% for the second periodontist) for detection of subgingival DC than the WHO probe. CONCLUSION The in vitro diagnostic performance of a #11/12 explorer was superior to the WHO periodontal probe for identification of subgingival DC. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE A #11/12 explorer, rather than the WHO probe, is recommended for identification of subgingival DC.
- Published
- 2021