Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes
The aim of this study was to compare four different kinds of probes in terms of accuracy, consistency, time, patient discomfort, and cost. The four types of probes were a standard hand probe (CP), marquis style, with 3 mm color-coded bands; a pressure-regulated handheld probe (MP) with a 20-g spring-controlled force; and two electronic probes, one pressure regulated to 20 g in 0.2 mm increments (FP), and one pressure-regulated 20 g and depths recorded in 0.5 mm JP), both via a foot pedal. The researchers took two calibrated examiners to probe 10 maintenance patients using the six Ramfjord teeth. One examiner probed each subject with all the probes and the second examiner probed the same patients a week later. Time was recorded in minutes and seconds. Patients circled a number from 0 to 3 indicating the amount of discomfort of each probe. The cost for use of each probe per 1,000 uses and per single use was estimated.
The results revealed that the conventional probe produced deeper pocket measurements than the MP or electronic probes. The MP probed deeper than the electronic probes. The difference between the two electronic probes was not significant. When evaluated in terms of discomfort, IP was significantly more uncomfortable than either hand probe. CP was significantly faster than FP and IP. There was no difference between the CP and MP or the FP or IP. The CP was the least expensive and the IP was the most expensive. This data indicates that the manual probes are equally reliable, less expensive, and less time consuming to use, and produce less discomfort to the patient. [M.C.R.]
Perry, D., E. Taggart, O. Leung, and E. Newbrun, J Periodont, 65:908, 1994