RESUMO
Automated probing systems have been developed to provide a more precise method of evaluating periodontal pocket depths and attachment levels. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance (reproducibility, time, and comfort) of a new electronic probe (E.P.) compared to the UNC 15 conventional probe (C.P.). Paired measurements 2 hours apart were performed by one examiner on 20 patients with moderate to advanced localized or generalized adult periodontitis. Both the E.P. and C.P. were used on each patient in a random manner. Overall reproducibility (+/- 1.5 mm) was: E.P. 94% (n = 1181); C.P. 96.5% (n = 1254); E.P./C.P. used interchangeably 82.4% (n = 830). In assessing the reproducibility of bleeding on probing, using the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, only the mid-facial surface, when using the C.P. exhibited differences between measurements (P < 0.017). Paired t test revealed E.P. took significantly longer per exam (4 minutes, 46 seconds). Comfort levels, evaluated with a visual analog scale, were not significantly different between probes as shown by the Mann Whitney U test. The data suggest that, in general, there was no major significant difference in reproducibility measurements between the E.P. and the C.P. The E.P. took more time. Comfort levels were similar for both probes.
