3 Clin Periadonta! 1997: 24: 340-345 Copyright © Munk.

sg<iard 1917
Prmted in Denmark . Alt rights reserved

dinical periodontDloiiy
ISSH 0303-6979

In vitro accuracy and E,D.Samuer, G.S.Griffiths^ and

A.Petrie^
'Ministry of Health. Sereraban, Malaysia.
^Department of Periodontology. Eastman Dental

reproducibility of automated and Institute and Hospital tor Oral Health Care
Sciences. London. UK. ^Department of Dental
Public Health. Eastman Dentai Institute and

conventional periodontal probes Hospital for Oral Heaifh Care Sciences. London,
UK

Satnuel ED, Griffiths GS. Petrie A: In yitro aecuraey and reproducibility of

automated and conyentional periodontal probes. J Clin Periodonto! J997: 24:
340-345. © Munksgaard, 1997.

Abstract. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and reproducibil-
ity of experienced and inexperienced examiners using 3 automated periodontal
probes (Florida Pocket Probe, Florida Disk Probe, Peri Probe) in comparison
with 3 conventional periodonta! probes (Marquis, Williams and EN-15 probes).
Test blocks of aluminium had 30 holes of diameter 1.10 mm and depths ranging
from 2.75 to 10.0 mm, machined with a tolerance of ±0.01 mm. 8 experienced
examiners and 8 inexperienced examiners were selected to perform duplicate
measurements on the blocks over 6 visits using each of the, 6 probes. 1 automated
and 1 conventional probe were used at each examination. The % accuracy and
reproducibility for each of the duplicate measurements was calculated and analysed
using Friedman 2-way analysis of variance and the Wilcoxon matched pairs test.
On average, all probes showed high reproducibility, with the Florida Disk Probe,
the Florida Pocket Probe and the Williams probe ranked best and the other 3
probes were less reproducible. On average, all probes showed a high degree of
accuracy, automated probes were ranked best and were significantly better than
conventional probes. Experience had little effect on reproducibility, with only the
Peri Probe showing significant differences at the 5% level between the groups.
Experience appeared to be more important for accuracy, as experienced exam-
iners were more accurate than inexperienced examiners, with significant differ-
ences at the 5% level for the EN-15, Florida Disk Probe and Peri Probe. However,
inexperienced examiners were significantly more accurate using the Williams
probe. This in vitro study has shown that automated probes offer increased Key words: periodontal probes; reproducibility;
accuracy over conventional probes and the Florida Pocket and disk probes com- accuracy
pare well with conventional probes for reproducibility.
Accepted for pubiication 28 August 1996

Automated periodontal probes were de-
veloped due to the necessity to use stan-
dardized probing forces in periodontal
clinical trials. Initially, they were built
to deliver a constant probing force
which improved the repeatability of
probing measurements. Later, with the
incorporation of computers into auto-
mated probing systems, electronic read-
outs and the direct transfer of data onto
computers was made possible. This had
the effect of eliminating the errors due
to reading the probe, dictation and
transcription. Several automated sys-
tems have been developed in the past 10
years.
The Peri Probe was built following
the Workshop in Quantitative Evalu-
ation of Periodontal Disease by Physi-
cal Measurement Techniques (1979).
An automated periodontal probe which
measures attachment level relative to
the cement-enamel junction (CEJ),
based on the deceleration noted as the
probe tip passes over the CEJ, was de-
veloped by Jeffcoat et al. (1986). Sild et
al. (1987) built the computerized peri-
odontal probe (CPP) consisting of a
periodontal probe directly connected to
a computer. The CPP allows for the
selection of a constant pressure (15 to
60 g), is precise to 0.1 mm and simple
to read. The Toronto Automated Peri-
odontal Probe (TAPP-Birek et al.
(1987)), uses the incisal and occlusal
surfaces of the teeth as a reference point
to measure attachment levels. The
Florida Probe is a computerized peri-
odontal probing system developed by
Gibbs et al. (1988). The system consists
of a probe handpiece, a displacement
transducer with digital readout, foot
switch, computer interface and personal
computer. Three types of handpiece are
available to be used with this system,
namely, the Florida Pocket Probe, the
Florida Stent Probe and the Florida
Disk Probe,

In vivo studies comparing the repro-
ducibiiity of the probes have been per-
formed and these often include cotn-
parisons between probing systetns. The
reproducibiiity data is often presented
by describing the standard deviation of
differences between replicate measure-
ments of pocket depth. Conventional
periodontal probes have been described
as having a standard deviation of ±0.82
mm whereas automated probes have
been described as being more reproduc-
ible with standard deviations of ±0.58
mm (Gibbs et al. 1988), or ±0.6 mm
(Magnusson et al. 1988b,) However, in
a study comparing the Florida Probe,
Florida Disk Probe and the conven-
tional Michigan O probe with Williams
markings, the mean intraexaminer stan-
dard deviation of differences in probing
depth ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 mm for
the Florida probe and 0.52 to 0.89 for
the conventional probe (Osborn et al
1992). Similarly, Wang et al. (1995)
found that intra- and inter-examiner re-
producibiiity may not necessarily be
higher with an electronic, force con-
trolled periodontal probe, than with a
conventional manual probe.
The lack of reproducibiiity of probe
measurements has been shown to be
due to a number of variables, which
may be related to the pocket (Listgarten
1980), the operator (Watts 1987), the
patient (Waal et al. 1986, Watts 1987)
and the probe (Van der Velden 1978).
This is a major disadvantage of m vivo
studies as it is not clear which of these
factors is contributing to the variation.
Furthermore, in vivo studies are seldom
capable of assessing accuracy, as the
true depth ofthe pocket is not known.
This study used standard holes pre-
pared in an aluminium block in an in
vitro model similar to that used by (Van
der Velden (1978). The aim was to look
at two of the above mentioned factors,
operator experience and probe type,
and determine their effect upon the ac-
curacy and reproducibiiity of probing
measurements.
Materials and Methods
Two aluminium blocks, 4 cmX6 cmX2
cm were designed with 15 precision en-
gineered holes 10 mm apart. In ma-
chining the holes, the diameter of each
hole was 1.10 mm and the depth ranged
from 2.75 to 10.00 mm in 0,25 mm in-
crements, randomly allocated between
blocks. The floor of the holes was flat
Probing reproducibiiity and accuracy
and a tolerance of ±0.01 mm was main-
tained in the manufacture,
2 groups of examiners were se-
lected, experienced and inexperienced.
The experienced examiners comprised
8 periodontists (6 male, 2 female, aged
27-59 years) from the staff of the De-
partment of Periodontology, Eastman
Dental Institute and Hospital, Lon-
don. They had been in periodontal
practice from 4 to 40 years. The inex-
perienced examiners comprised 8 stu-
dent hygienists (females aged 20 to 45
years) from the School of Dental Hy-
giene, Eastman Dental Institute and
Hospital, London. They had been in-
troduced to periodonta! probing 4
months before the study started.
3 different designs of conventional
periodontal probes were selected for use
in the study. To enstire consistency, only
one probe of each design was selected
and used throughout by all examiners.
All were checked to ensure consistency
of markings. The Marquis periodontal
probe (PX Prima, Weybridge, England)
had a tapered tine with a tip diameter
of 0.5 mm. The markings consisted of
darkly etched bands which divided the
probe at 3, 6, 9 and 12 mm frotn the
tip. The Williams periodontal probe
(Hu-Fnedy, IKK UNITY, USA) had a
tapered tine with tip diameter of 0,5
mm. The markings consisted of milled
grooves and were situated at 1,2, 3, 5,
7, 8, 9, and 10 mm from the tip. The
EN-15 periodontal probe (Ash Dent-
sply, Weybridge. UK) has an almost
parallel-sided tine and a tip diameter of
0.5 mm. The markings consist of milled
grooves at 1mm intervals up to IStnm
from the tip. The intervals at 4-5 mm,
9-10 mm, and 14-15 mm are identified
by a dark etch over the whole of the
band.
The 3 Automated Periodontal Probes
selected for this study were the Florida
Pocket Probe and the Florida Disk
Probe (Florida Probe Corporation,
Gainesville, Florida, USA), and the
Peri Probe (SamHall Pile Dental,
Sweden). Ali three probes have been de-
scribed elsewhere. Briefly the Florida
Probe consists of a handpiece, with a
probe tine similar to a Michigan O
probe. The tip is hemispherical with di-
ameter 0.4 mm and a range of 10 mm.
The Florida Disk Probe is a modified
version of the Pocket Probe and is
aimed at measuring attachment levels
by using the occlusal surface or incisal
edge of a tooth as a reference point. To
facilitate this the probe has a metal disk
341
11 mm in diameter that rests on the
tooth stirface. In order to accommodate
the additional distance from the oc-
clusal surface to the gingivai margin the
probe tip has been lengthened to 20
mm. With both probes the tine is con-
nected to a movable arm which trans-
fers the movement of the tip to a dis-
placement transducer at the end of the
probe handpiece. The transducer senses
displacement up to 0.05 mm and accu-
racy over a 10 mm range is claimed to
be ±0.1 mm. In operation, the probe
tip is placed at the bottom of the
pocket. Then the probe handpiece is
pressed until the edge of the sleeve con-
tacts the gingivai margin, or the disk
contacts the tooth. The force of the tip
on the bottom of the suicus is tnain-
tained at 25 g by the coil springs in the
handpiece. Measurements can be ob-
served directly on the computer screen
and recorded in the computer by press-
ing a foot switch, or may be entered
blind.
The Peri Probe is an automated
pressure-sensitive probing system
which allows measurement up to a
precision of ±0.2 mm. It consists of a
handpiece and a registration unit com-
prising a microcomputer and printer.
The probe consists of a rigid spring
like steel wire with a 0.5 mm ball-end-
ed tip which runs within a measuring
sleeve and is fitted to the tip of the
handpiece. The probing pressure is de-
tertnined by the built-in spring mech-
anism, which means the pressure var-
ies from 0.25N in deep pockets to
0.5N in shallow pockets. As with the
Florida probe the data is displayed as
it is recorded or can be entered blind
by relying on the data capture of the
microprocessor. To operate the Peri
Probe, the end of the probe is inserted
subgingivally The sleeve around the
probe is then pushed down until it
touches the margin of the free gingiva
or some other level of reference. By
pushing the forward button on top of
the handpiece, the measurement is
registered in the microcomputer.
All measurements were conducted in
an environment with adequate lighting.
The examiners were neither aware of
the true depths nor the range of depths
of the holes being probed. The 30 holes
were measured in sequence by each
examiner using each of the 6 probes
studied. Repeat measurements with
each probe were made a few days later.
Each examiner was instructed on the
markings of each probe to be used and
342 Samuel et al.

Tabte 1. Median, 5th and 95th percentiles and ranking derived from analysis of probe reproducibility data
Experienced examiners Inexperienced examiners
5th+95th 5th + 95th
Probe type rank median {%) percentile (%) rank median C'^ii) IJercentile ("'u) Sum of ranks
Marqms Probe 4 99.3 95-100 6 98.2 94-100 10
Williams Probe 1 100 94-100 3 98.9 93-]00 4
EN-15 Probe 5 98.4 91-100 5 98.4 90-]00 10
Florida Disk Probe 2 99.6 98-100 1 99.5 97-100 3
Florida Pocket Probe 3 99.5 94-100 99,2 91-100 5
Pferi Probe 6 97.5 95-99.5 4 98,8 91-100 iO

Table 2. Median, 5th and 95th percentiies and ranking derived from analysis of probe accuracy data
Experienced examiners Inexperienced examiners
5th + 95th 5th-1-95th
Probe type rank median (%) percentile {%) ratik median ('Vi) percenti]e (%) Sum of ranks
Marquis Probe 4 98.2 90-]00 5 97.4 87-100 9
Williams Probe 6 96,0 89-]00 4 97,9 90-100 10
EN-15 Probe 5 97,8 9]-]00 6 96.7 89-99 11
Florida Disk Probe 3 98,6 97-99 2 98.2 97-100 5
Florida Pocket Probe 2 98.7 97-]O0 1 98.5 96-100 3
Peri Probe 1 98.8 96-]00 3 98.1 87-99 4

the procedure to be followed. They were
then given 10 minutes to familiarize
themselves with the probe atid pro-
cedure prior to commencement of re-
cording. In order to prevent recall of
readings, measurements were recorded
over 6 visits per examiner, with each
visit consisting of probing with one
conventional and one automated probe.
As measurements from the automated
probes can be read blind, this would re-
duce any bias which may be introduced
by repeated probing.
Statistical Method
Al! analyses were performed using the
statistical software package Minitab
DOS Microcomputer Version Release 7
(Minitab Inc., State College, PA 16801
USA), Duplicate readings using each
probe were recorded by each examiner
giving the% reproducibility, as calcu-
lated below.
r reading 1 —reading 2
% reproducibility = 100-
Lmean of reading 1 -I-reading 2)
The true depths of the 30 holes were
known and were compared with the
mean of the duplicate readings per-
formed by each examiner to give a% ac-
curacy as shown below:
For each probe, the mean % accuracy
and reproducibility of the 8 experienced
and also of the 8 inexperienced exam-
iners was calculated for each hole. The
Friedman non parametric 2-way analy-
sis of variance was performed on the
mean % reproducibility data for all 6
probes over the 30 holes measured,This
was performed independently for the
experienced and the inexperienced
groups. Each analysis of variance gave
a comparison of reproducibility be-
tween the 6 probes separately for the
experienced and the inexperienced
examiners. It also enabled a ranktng of
the probes to be made within each
group based on the mean probe repro-
ducibility averaged over the 30 holes.
The Friedman analysis was similarly
performed for the percentage accuracy
of all 6 probes over the 30 holes meas-
ured. This gave a comparison of accu-
XlOO
racy between the 6 probes for both
groups.
The Wilcoxon matched pairs test was
then performed on the difference be-
tween the mean percentage reproducib-
ility of the 8 experienced and 8 inexperi-
enced examiners for each probe. This
gave a between group comparison of re-
producibility of the examiners for each
of the 6 probes. Similarly, the Wilcoxon
matched pairs test was performed on
the differences between the mean per-
centage accuracy for the experienced
and inexperienced examiners for each
probe. This gave a between group com-
parison of accuracy of the examiners
for each of the 6 probes.
Results
Analysis of variance of the reproducib-
ility data revealed statistically signifi-
cant differences between the six probes
for experienced examiners {p<0.00]),
but no significant differences between
probes for the inexperienced examiners
{p=0.l5). The median and the 5th and
95th percentile reproducibility values
for the 30 holes are presented in Table
1, along with probe rankings for experi-
enced and inexperienced examiners and
a combined ranking. Both experienced
and inexperienced groups show highly
reproducible data for all probes with
97,5% the lowest median value (re-

[ true reading-mean of reading 1+reading 2 ) x l 0 0 l

2 5
true reading
2__:
J
corded for experienced examiners using
the Peri Probe), The 5th and 95th per-

Table 3. Between group comparison (experienced-inexperienced) of probe reproducibiiity
using the Wiicoxon matched signed ranks test
Probe type />-value
Marquis Probe 0.31
Williams Probe 0,33
EN-15 Probe 0,81
Florida Disk Probe 0.93
Elorida Pocket Probe 0.27
Peri Probe 0.005
Table 4. Between-group comparison of probe accuracy using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test
Probe type /)-va]ue
Marquis Probe 0.09
Williams Probe 0.002
EN-15 Probe 0.04
Florida Disk Probe 0.05
Florida Pocket Probe 0.06
Peri Probe <0.001
centile values representing the spread of
reproducibiiity over the 30 holes had a
wider range for the inexperienced than
for the experienced examiners. The
combined ranking highlights 3 probes,
Flortda Disk Probe, Wtlliams Probe,
Florida Pocket Probe, which were very
reproducible for both groups. The re-
maining probes performed less well and
had equal combined ranks.
Analysis of variance of the accuracy
data revealed statistically significant
differences between the six probes for
both the experienced (p<0.001) and in-
experienced (/)=0.002) examiners. The
median and the 5th and 95th percentile
accuracy values for the 30 holes are pre-
sented in Table 2, along with probe ran-
kings for experienced atid inexperi-
enced examiners and a combined rank-
ing. The median values for accuracy are
lower than those for reproducibiiity, but
were still highly accurate with the lowest
median value of 96.0 (Williams probe,
experienced examiners). For both ex-
perienced and inexperienced examiners
the automated probes proved to be
more accurate than the conventional
probes and this is highlighted by the
combined ranking scores.
Tables 3, 4 show for all six probes the
p-values, estimated medians and the 5th
and 95th percentiles of the difference in
reproducibility/accuracy derived from
the Wilcoxon signed ranks test between
experienced and inexperienced exam-
iners. There was a statistically signifi-
cant difference for reproducibiiity be-
tween experienced and inexperienced
Probing reproducibiiity and accuracy
Estimated median 5th+95th
of the difference (%) percentiles ("/«)
0.0 -3.85 + 5.36
0.0 -4.46+6.60
0.0 -6.61+7.97
-0.01 -1.64+3.17
0.35 -4.92+6.06
-1.31 -4.65 + 5.12
Estimated median 5th+95th
of the difference {'%,) percentiles {"/••)
0.55 -3.22+8.90
-0.94 -8.90T1.97
0.0 -1.49+4.23
0.39 -1.24+1,22
0.30 -1.69+2.15
1.27 -1.04+10.2
examiners when using the Peri Probe
(/)=0.005). The negative value for the
estimated median indicates that the ex-
perienced examiners were less reproduc-
ible than the inexperienced examiners.
The other probes showed a high ten-
dency towards agreement between ex-
perienced and inexperienced examiners.
There were statistically significant
differences at the 5% level between the
experienced and inexperienced exam-
iners for the accuracy of the Williams
(j5=0.002), EN-15 (;j=0.04), Florida
Disk Probe (;i=0.05) and Peri Probes
(/i<0.001). The estimated median
values indicate that the experienced
examiners were more accurate than the
inexperienced examiners, for all except
the Williams Probe, the negative value
representing a better performance by
inexperienced examiners for this probe.
Discussion
The study design was similar to that
employed' by Van der Velden (1978)
when investigating conventional probes.
2 aluminium blocks each had 15 milled
holes with depths from 2.75-10.00 mm,
reflecting the main range of pocket
depths of interest clinically. Bias was re-
duced by distributing the depths ran-
domly. Recall of readings was mini-
mised by using 6 probing sessions, each
consisting of one automated probe
which could be "read blind", and one
conventional probe. The advantages of
such an in vitro study would be to limit
343
the source of error to the factors related
to the probe and operator. Thus all
probes were subject to variation due to
examiner experience, as well as posi-
tional or angulation errors with the
probe. In addition, the conventional
probes were subject to variation due to
tbe marking system and the accuracy of
the examiner in observing the correct
depth. Factors such as tissue tone,
probing force and the reproducibiiity of
probing the same site were eliminated.
This limits the interpretation of the re-
sults, in applying them to the clinical
situation. However, such in vitro work
may be beneficial before further in vivo
studies are undertaken.
The median and the 5th and 95th
percentiles describe the extent of vari-
ation of reproducibiiity and accuracy of
the six probes. Although the data shows
that overall the six probes performed
well m these areas, there were statisti-
cally significant differences between
probes. Furthermore, there were vari-
ations in reproducibiiity of 9% (EN15,
experienced examiners) and accuracy of
13% (Peri Probe, inexperienced exam-
iners). Bearing in mind this is a simpli-
fied in vitro model these errors may be
much more pronounced and of clinical
significance when translated to the in
vivo situation.
The reproducibiiity with the auto-
mated probes was expected to be better
than conventional probes in this in vitro
model, as the decision making process
of "reading the probe" had been re-
moved. Furthermore, greater reprodu-
cibiiity of the Florida probe in compari-
son with the conventional probe has
been described by some authors {Gibbs
et al. 1988, Magnusson et al. 1988a).
However, when considering the conven-
tional probes and automated probes as
a group this study showed neither
group of probes had an overall advan-
tage. This was the case for both experi-
enced and inexperienced examiners.
The fact that the Williams and Florida
Disk Probe compared well for reprodu-
cibiiity would support the findings of
Osborn et al. (1992) and Wang et al.
(1995) showing no advantage of auto-
mated probes. However, if the two
probes selected for study were the
Florida Disk and the EN 15 probes, the
relative rankings from this study sug-
gest that a direct comparison would
show differences as described by Gibbs
et al. (1988) and Magnusson et al.
(1988a). This suggests that the probes
selected for comparison and the relative
 344 Sarttuel et al.
experience of the operators with these
probes may influence such studies.
By contrast, the data for accuracy
showed that the autotnated probes
were ranked as more accurate than
conventional probes. This was again
true for both experienced and inex-
perienced examiners. Indeed, sum-
mation of the combined rankings of
all three conventional and automated
probes shows that the conventional
probes (30) had 2,5X the overall
ranking of the automated probes (12).
Comparison with the hterature cannot
be made as no similar data exists for
accuracy.
The use of experienced and inexperi-
enced examiners was included as train-
ing and experience have both been de-
scribed previously as being important,
with improved reproducibility achieved
following training and calibration
(Abbas et al. 1982). Again the removal
of decision making when using the
automated probes would tend to negate
the effects of experience and we might
expect differences between conventional
probes, but less evidence of this in the
automated probes. However, training
appeared to be more important for ac-
curacy with significant differences be-
tween the two groups of examiners for
several probes. The lack of any signifi-
cant difference between experienced
and inexperienced examiners for repro-
ducibility, except with the Peri Probe,
was surprising, 2 factors probably ac-
counted for the poor reproducibility
with this probe. Some operators found
the flexible tip of the Peri Probe bent
too easily, giving overscoring. In ad-
dition, there was a slight delay between
pressing the button for data capture
and the information being recorded,
which meant the operator might be
withdrawing the probe at the time of re-
cording, giving underscoring. This may
partially explain why this probe was the
most accurate for the experienced
examiners and yet was the least repro-
ducible. The reverse result was noted
for the Willaims probe which was the
most reproducible for the experienced
examiners and yet was the least accu-
rate. A possible explanation for this
may be that the majority of examiners
were most familiar with this probe and
therefore found it easier to repeat their
readings. However, as the increments
are in whole numbers this would have
resulted in the depths at 0,25 mm inter-
vals being consistently recorded incor-
rectly This just emphasises that repro-
ducibility and accuracy are not the
same thing and an examiner can be very
reproducible, but couid be very mac-
curate.
In conclusion, this in vitro study has
shown that automated probes offer in-
creased accuracy over conventional
probes, and the Florida Pocket and
Disk Probes compare well with conven-
tional probes for reproducibiiity.
Zusammenfassung
Genauigkeit und Wiederholharkeit hei auto-
matisierten und herkommlicken parodontalen
Sonden in vitro
Das Anliegen der vorliegenden Studie be-
stand darin, die Genauigkeit und Wiederhol-
barkeit von Messungen mit .•? automatisierten
Parodontalsonden (Florida Pocket Probe,
Florida Disk Probe, Peri Probe) von erfahre-
nen und weniger erfahrenen Untersuchern
priifen zu lassen und mit 3 herkommlichen
Parodontalsonden (Marquis, Williams und
EN-15 Sonden) zu vergleichen. Dazu wurden
Testblocke aus Aluminium mil 30 maschinell
gebohrten Lochern in einer Abmessung von
i.lO mm. mit einer Tiefe von 2.75 bis 10.0
mm bei einer Tcleranz von ±0.01 mm ange-
wandt. Zur Durchfuhrung von Doppelmes-
sungen auf den Testblocks wurden 8 erfahre-
ne und 8 unerfahrene Untersucher ausge-
wahlt. die an 6 Versuchsterminen mit jeder
der 6 Sonden Testmessungcn vorzunehmen
hatten. .An jedem dieser Termine wurde mit
einer automatisierten und einer herkommli-
chen Sonde gearbeitet. Die prozentualen An-
teile hinsichtlich Genauigkeit und Wieder-
holbarkeit wurden errechnet und mil der
Zweiwegsvarianzanalyse nach Friedman so-
wie dem Wilcoxon-Test fur gepaarte Stich-
proben analysiert. Bei alien Sonden lag im
Mittel ein hoher Grad der Wiederholbarkeit
vor; Florida Disk Probe, Florida Poket Pro-
be und Williams Probe schnitten am besten
ab, die MeBergebnisse der 3 anderen waren
weniger haufig reproduzierbar. Im allgemein-
en lag bei alien Sonden gleichfalls hochgradi-
ge MeBgenauigkeit vor; automatisierte Son-
den wurde am besten eingestuft. erheblich
besser als herkommliche. Erfahrung beein-
fluBte die Wiederholbarkeit nur geringfugig,
nur bei der Peri Probe kam es zwischen den
Gruppen zu signifikanten Unterschieden auf
dem 5% Niveau. Ftir die MeBgenauigkeil
schien die Erfahrung wichtiger zu sein, da er-
fahrene Untersucher genauere MeCergebnis-
se erzielten als weniger erfahrene, mit stati-
stisch abgesicherten Unterschieden auf dem
5% Niveau bei Messungen mit der EN-15,
Florida Disk Probe und der Peri Probe. Bei
Anwendung der Williams Probe waren je-
doch die Ergebnisse weniger erfahrener
Untersucher signifikant genauer. Diese in vi-
tro Studie hat deutlich gemacht, daB auto-
matisierte Sonden bessere Genauigkeitswerte
als herkommliche erreichen und daB sich die
Ergebnisse der Florida Pocket und Disk Son-
den gut mit den Wiederholbarkeitswerten
herkommlicher Sonden vergleichen lassen.
Resume
Fiahiliie et reproductibiliie in vitro des mesu-
res prises par des sondes parodontales automa-
tiques et conventionneiles
Le but de cette etude a ete de chercher la
fiabilite et la reproductibilite d'examinateurs
avec ou sans experience en utilisanl 3 sonde.s
parodontales automatiques (Florida Pocket
Probe, Florida Disk Probe, Peri probe) en
comparaison avec 3 sondes parodontales
conventionnelles (Marquis, Williams et EN-
15). Des blocs tests d'aluminium avec 30
trous d'un diametre de 1.10 mm et des pro-
fondeurs s'etalant de 2.75 a 10.0 mm ont ete
usines avec une tolerance de±0.01 mm. 8
examinateurs avec experience et 8 sans ont
ete selectionnes pour faire des mesures dou-
bles sur des blocs lors de 6 visites en utilisant
chacunes des f> sondes. Une sonde automati-
que et une conventionnelle ont ete utilisees
lors de chaque e.xamen. Le ".'« de fiabilite et
de reproduction pour chaeune des mesures
doubles a ete calcuie et analyse en utilisant
I'analyse de variance a 2 voies de Friedman
et le test de Wilcoxon pour paires couplees.
En moyenne toutes les sondes s'accompa-
gnaient d'une haute reproduction, la Florida
Pocket Probe el la Williams Probe etant les
meilleures et les 3 autres sondes ayant un de-
gre de reproduction inferieur. Dans I'ensem-
ble toutes les sondes avaient un haut degre
de siarete, les sondes automatiques etani esti-
mees les meilleures et etanl significativemenl
meilleures que les sondes conventionnelles.
L'experience n'avait que peu d'effet sur la re-
production avec la Peri Probe etant la seule
a montrer des differences significatives au ni-
veau de 5*'^i entre les groupes. L'experience
semblait plus importante en ce qui concer-
nait la sQrete. ies examinateurs experimenles
etant plus surs que ceux inexperimentes avec
des differences significatives au niveau de 5'^^)
pour les sondes EN-15, Florida Disk et Peri
Probe. Cependant les examinateurs inexperi-
mentes etaient significativement plus surs
lorsqu'ils titilisaient la sonde de Williams.
Cette etude in vitro a done montre que les
sondes automatiques offraient une surete
plus importante que les conventionnelles, et
que les sondes Florida Pocket et Disk se
comparaient bien avec les sondes convention-
nelles en ce qui concerne la reproduction des
donnees obtenues.
References
Abbas, F, Hart, A. A. M., Oosting, J. & Van
der Velden, U. (1982) Effect of training
and probing force on the reproducibility
of pocket depth measurements. Journal of
Periodontal Re.iearch 17, 226-234.
Birek, P, McCulloch, C. A. G. & Hardy, V.
(1987) Gingival attachment level measure-
ments with an automated periodontal
probe. Journal of Clinical Periodontology
14, 472^77.

Gibbs, C. H., Hirschfeld, J. W, U e , J. G.,
Low, S. B., Magnusson, I., Thousand, R.
R., Yemeni, P. & Clark, W. B. (198«) De-
scription and clinical evaluation of a new
computerized periodontal probe the
Florida Probe. Journal of Ctinieal Period-
ontoiogy 15. l37-\44.
Jeffcoat, M. K., Jeffcoat, R. L., Jens, S. C. &
Captain, K. (1986) A new periodontal
probe with automated cemento-enamel
junction detection. Journai of Clinieal
Periodontology 13, 276-280.
Listgarten, M. A. (1980) Periodontal Prob-
ing: What does it mean? Journal of Clinical
Periodontology 1. 165-176.
Magnusson, 1., Fuller, W. W., Heins. P. J.,
Rau, C. F, Gibbs, C. H., Marks, R. G. &
Clark, W. B. (1988a) Correlation between
electronic and visual readings of pocket
depths with a newly developed constant
force probe. Journal of Clinical Periodon-
tology 15, 180-184.
Magnusson, I.. Clark, W. B., Marks, R. G.,
Gibbs, C. H., Manouchehr-Pour, M. &
Probing reprodueibility and accuracy
Low, S. B. (1988b) Attachment level meas-
urements with a constant force electronic
probe. Journal of Ciinieal Periodontology
15. 185-188.
Osborn, J. B., Stoltenberg, J. L., Huso, B. A.,
Appeli, D. M. & Philstrom, B. L. (!992)
Comparison of measurement variability in
subjects with a moderate periodontitis
using a conventional probe and a constant
force probe. Journal of Periodontology 63,
283-289.
Sild, E., Bernardi, F, Carnevale, G. & Mi!-
ano, F. (1987a) Computerized periodontal
probe with adjustable pressure. Vie Inter-
national Journal of Periodontics and Re-
storative Dentistry 4, 52-62.
Van der Velden, U. (1978) Errors in the as-
sessment of pocket depths in vitro. Journal
of Clinical Periodontology 5, 182-187.
Waal, H. D. Kon S. & Ruben, M. P (1986)
Periodontal probing. The Journal of the
Western Society of Periodontology. Peri-
odontal Abstracts 34, 5-10.
Wang, S-U., Leknes, K. N., Zimmerman. G.
345
J., Sigurdsson, T. J., Wikesjo U. M. E. &
Selvig, K. A. (1995) Intra-and inter-exam-
iner reproducibility in constant force prob-
ing. Journal of Ciincai Periodontology 22,
918-922.
Watts, T. (1987) Constant force probing with
and without a stent in untreated peri-
odontal disease: the clinical reproducibility
problem and possible sources of error.
Journal of Clinical Periodontology 14, 407-
411.
Address:
G S. Griffiths
Department of Periodontology
Eastman Dental Institute and Hospital for
Oral Health Care Sciences
256 Gray's Inn Road
London WCIX SLD
UK