The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of WHO Periodontal Probe and #11/12 Dental Explorer for Subgingival Calculus Detection

Thomas E Rams, Marc P Manos

Keywords : Dental calculus, Diagnosis, In vitro, ODU 11/12 explorer, WHO probe

Citation Information : Rams TE, Manos MP. Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of WHO Periodontal Probe and #11/12 Dental Explorer for Subgingival Calculus Detection. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (1):13-17.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3033

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


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.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Akcali A, Lang NP. Dental calculus: the calcified biofilm and its role in disease development. Periodontology 2000 2018;76(1):109–115. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12151.
  2. Meissner G, Kocher T. Calculus-detection technologies and their clinical application. Periodontology 2000 2011;55(1):189–204. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00379.x.
  3. Huennekens SC, Daniel SJ. Task analysis of the ODU 11/12 explorer. J Dent Hyg 1992;66(1):24–26.
  4. Kamath DG, Umesh Nayak S. Detection, removal and prevention of calculus: literature review. Saudi Dent J 2014;26(1):7–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2013.12.003.
  5. Rams TE, Lopes JA, Crowley MJ, et al. Comparative in vitro performance of an ODU 11/12 dental explorer and differential reflectometry for detection of subgingival dental calculus. J Oral Biol (Northborough) 2017;4(2):5. Available at: http://www.avensonline.org/wp-content/uploads/JOBY-2377-987X-04-0030.pdf.
  6. Ainamo J, Barmes D, Beagrie G, et al. Development of the World Health Organization (WHO) community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN). Int Dent J 1982;32(3):281–291.
  7. Petersen PE, Ogawa H. The global burden of periodontal disease: towards integration with chronic disease prevention and control. Periodontology 2000 2012;60(1):15–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2011.00425.x.
  8. Landry RG, Jean M. Periodontal screening and recording (PSR) index: precursors, utility and limitations in a clinical setting. Int Dent J 2002;52(1):35–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2002.tb00595.x.
  9. British Society of Periodontology. The Good Practitioner's Guide to Periodontology. Selby, United Kingdom: British Society of Periodontology; 2016, p. 52. Available at: http://www.bsperio.org.uk/publications/good_practitioners_guide_2016.pdf.
  10. Clerehugh V, Abdeia R, Hull PS. The effect of subgingival calculus on the validity of clinical probing measurements. J Dent 1996;24(5):329–333. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(95)00095-x.
  11. Shaikh SA. Measures derived from a 2 x 2 table for an accuracy of a diagnostic test. J Biom Biostat 2011;2(5):4. Available at: https://www.omicsonline.org/measures-derived-from-a-2-x-2-table-for-an-accuracy-of-a-diagnostic-test-2155-6180.1000128.php?aid=3010.
  12. Hunt RJ. Percent agreement, Pearson's correlation, and kappa as measures of inter-examiner reliability. J Dent Res 1986;65(2):128–130. DOI: 10.1177/00220345860650020701.
  13. Sherman PR, Hutchens LH Jr, Jewson LG, et al. The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planning. I. Clinical detection of residual calculus. J Periodontol 1990;61(1):3–8. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1990.61.1.3.
  14. Pippin DJ, Feil P. Interrater agreement on subgingival calculus detection following scaling. J Dent Educ 1992;56(5):322–326.
  15. Buchanan SA, Jenderseck RS, Granet MA, et al. Radiographic detection of dental calculus. J Periodontol 1987;58(11):747–751. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1987.58.11.747.
  16. Hyer JC, Deas DE, Palaiologou AA, et al. Accuracy of dental calculus detection using digital radiography and image manipulation. J Periodontol 2020;19:0669. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0669.
  17. Partido BB, Webb CA, Carr MP. Comparison of calculus detection among dental hygienists using an explorer and ultrasonic insert. Int J Dent Hyg 2019;17(2):192–198. DOI: 10.1111/idh.12388.
  18. Rams TE, Alwaqyan AY. In vitro performance of DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence device for dental calculus detection on human tooth root surfaces. Saudi Dent J 2017;29(4):171–178. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.08.001.
  19. Folwaczny M, Heym R, Mehl A, et al. Subgingival calculus detection with fluorescence induced by 655 nm InGaAsP diode laser radiation. J Periodontol 2002;73(6):597–601. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.6.597.
  20. Krause F, Braun A, Frentzen M. The possibility of detecting subgingival calculus by laser-fluorescence in vitro. Lasers Med Sci 2003;18(1):32–35. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-002-0241-7.
  21. Kurihara E, Koseki T, Gohara K, et al. Detection of subgingival calculus and dentine caries by laser fluorescence. J Periodontal Res 2004;39(1):59–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2004.00712.x.
  22. Laky M, Laky B, Arslan M, et al. Effectiveness of a 655-nm InGaAsP diode-laser to detect subgingival calculus in patients with periodontal disease. J Periodontol 2020;Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0663.
  23. Meissner G, Oehme B, Strackeljan J, et al. Clinical subgingival calculus detection with a smart ultrasonic device: a pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(2):126–132. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01177.x.
  24. Caffesse RG, Sweeney PL, Smith BA. Scaling and root planing with and without periodontal flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13(3):205–210. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1986.tb01461.x.
  25. Osborn JB, Lenton PA, Lunos SA, et al. Endoscopic vs. tactile evaluation of subgingival calculus. J Dent Hyg 2014;88(4):229–236.
  26. Kuang Y, Hu B, Chen J, et al. Effects of periodontal endoscopy on the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2017;148(10):750–759. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.05.011.
  27. Wilson TG Jr, Carnio J, Schenk R, et al. Absence of histologic signs of chronic inflammation following closed subgingival scaling and root planing using the dental endoscope: human biopsies - a pilot study. J Periodontol 2008;79(11):2036–2041. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.080190.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.