View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
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) 28880116Lin/201839 porcine teeth; 12 teeth with artificially deeper pocketsLaboratory study
Key resultsObtaining 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) 28261520Kim/2017Periodontal pockets in a porcine modelLaboratory study
Key resultsPeriodontal 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: 06/18/2018spacer
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
post a comment
None available

Return to Found CATs list