|
Title |
Biomedical Imaging Results in Greater Accuracy than Conventional Periodontal Probing |
Clinical Question |
In adult patients, are biomedical imaging techniques more accurate than conventional periodontal probe techniques in measuring clinical attachment levels?
|
Clinical Bottom Line |
Biomedical imaging is more accurate than conventional periodontal probe techniques in measuring clinical attachment levels in the adult patient. Studies show that biomedical imaging has less operator technique error and can measure the entire periodontal pocket compared to the limitations seen with conventional probing. |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 28880116 | Lin/2018 | 39 porcine teeth; 12 teeth with artificially deeper pockets | Laboratory study | Key results | Obtaining probe depths with the use of photoacoustic ultrasound exhibited more consistency in measurements over conventional probing. It also exhibited more accuracy in recorded pocket depths, as it could measure the entire pocket compared to conventional probing, which measures limited sites within the pocket. There were statistically significant differences between photoacoustic ultrasound and conventional probing for distal, lingual, and buccal sites but not mesial. Photoacoustic ultrasound imaging reduces random clinician errors and instead provides a non-invasive approach to measuring pocket depths.
| #2) 28261520 | Kim/2017 | Periodontal pockets in a porcine model | Laboratory study | Key results | Periodontal pockets and attachment loss were accurately measured by use of optical coherence tomography (OCT). The average sulcus depths measured by OCT for 3-mm, 4-mm, 5-mm and 6-mm pockets were similar to those obtained by manual periodontal probing. Results also showed that conventional probing has several limitations in both reliability and accuracy due to multiple sources of error. | |
Evidence Search |
probing [all fields] AND “photoacoustic ultrasound” [All fields] OR “optical coherence tomography” [All fields] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity: Both studies were comparative studies that compared traditional probing techniques to either photoacoustic ultrasound imaging or optical coherence tomography (OCT). Both studies used porcine teeth that were probed prior to photoacoustic or optical coherence tomography imaging being performed.
Perspective: After evaluating both articles, either alternative to traditional clinical attachment loss measurement approaches could serve as a less invasive and more accurate way of measuring probe depths. Although effective, we do not foresee clinicians forgoing traditional probing measures. |
Applicability |
The evidence shows the effectiveness of utilizing photoacoustic imaging and optical coherence tomography imaging for measuring clinical attachment loss in both healthy patients and patients with periodontal attachment loss. Due to the noninvasive nature of the OCT method, there have been no reports of discomfort in other studies (patient-perception studies) of this technique. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Periodontics) |
Keywords |
probe, periodontal probing, optical coherence tomography (OCT), photoacoustic ultrasound
|
ID# |
3319 |
Date of submission: |
06/18/2018 |
E-mail |
demoss@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Author |
Michelle DeMoss, RDH BS |
Co-author(s) |
Amber Lovatos, RDH, BSDH Marie Richey, RDH, BS |
Co-author(s) e-mail |
lovatos@livemail.uthscsa.edu; richeym@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Melanie Taverna, MSDH, RDH |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
taverna@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
None available | |
|
|