Journal of periodontology vol:64 issue:1 pages:35-9
This study aimed to compare, in vivo, a conventional pocket probe with an automatic, computerized, constant force, electronic probe with a discrimination ability up to 0.1 mm. Sixteen adults with moderate chronic periodontitis and free of supra- and subgingival calculus participated in this study. Eight patients were examined by 2 investigators who used both the conventional and the automatic probes, for a total of 4 probings per subject. The remaining 8 patients were examined 4 times by investigator 1, twice with each probe. For each patient the Ramfjord teeth were examined and 6 sites were considered per tooth. Although the pocket depth measurements recorded by the manual probe were consistently deeper than those of the electronic probe, a good correlation was found between both recordings. Moreover, intra- and inter-examiner comparisons showed comparable standard deviations for both probes and small differences in absolute scores. The conventional probe was slightly more reproducible whereas the automated probe had the advantage of automatic registration. The results indicate that both probes can be considered as valuable in clinical practice.