Periodontal probe use in general practice in Florida

Article Abstract:

Periodontal disease (disease of the supporting structures of the teeth) is progressive, and the final stage is the loss of connective tissue attachment (the tissue that attaches the gum to the bone). Although gum response to insertion of the dental probe is commonly considered a good indicator of the extent of periodontal disease, in reality, the relationship between such indicators and attachment loss is weak. Thus, the measurement of pocket depth as determined by the probe is only an indirect indicator of disease; this procedure is not always performed by dentists in general practice. To assess the frequency of probing, questionnaires were completed by 134 out of 255 dental hygienists (representing four percent of active dental practices in the state) attending a meeting of the Florida Dental Hygienists' Association. Patients were described as either 'new' (until the development of the first treatment plan) or 'recall' (after the first year). Periodontal probing was 'complete' (probing at four or more sites per tooth) or 'selected' (fewer than four sites), and it was done during baseline (first visit) or at recall (subsequent visits). The responses revealed that 62 percent of the practices completed baseline probing of new adult patients; no probing was reported for 16 percent of new patient examinations. Data on pocket probing depth was collected by the dentist in 30 percent of the offices, by the hygienist in 54 percent, and by either practitioner in the rest of the practices. A complete probing examination was administered to recall patients in 57 percent of the practices; 32 percent of these patients had selected site probing only. Identification of periodontal inflammation was left to the hygienist in 70 percent of the practices. Clinical signs, which are not reliable indicators of connective tissue attachment loss, were recorded more often than probing data. Overall, many practices collect probing data, but diagnosis of periodontal disease is often based on clinical signs, rather than evidence obtained from probing depth measurements. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Research, Florida, Measurement, Surveys, Dentistry, Dental equipment and supplies, Dental equipment, Dental supplies, Dental hygienists, Periodontal pockets

---

Screening for periodontal disease: radiographs vs PSR

Article Abstract:

Periodontal screening and recording (PSR) appears to correlate well with periodontal probing for evaluating the extent of gum disease. X rays show some correlation, but may not be a reliable means of evaluation. Periodontal probing involves measuring the depth of the gums at several points around each tooth. It is accurate but time consuming, hence the development of PSR, a simplifed technique. Researchers compared the results of PSR with periodontal probing and measurements made from dental X rays on 24 adults. Most patients had some degree of gum disease. Probing depths and PSR scores showed a strong correlation with each other. X rays could be used to measure bone levels, which were mostly normal. However, X rays correlated poorly with probing and PSR assessments, which evaluated the amount of inflammation of the soft tissues. X rays taken within the previous six months could be used to evaluate the attachment level of the gums.

Teeth

---

Assessment of periodontal status with PSR and traditional clinical periodontal examination

Article Abstract:

The periodontal screening and recording (PSR) examination appears to be useful, although it may not detect some existing disease. PSR uses a simple probing method and minimal documentation to detect early periodontal disease. Researchers compared the results of PSR and a traditional periodontal exam performed on 24 adults. PSR and the traditional periodontal exam revealed similar levels of disease in most regions of the mouth. Front teeth tended to have less periodontal disease than back teeth. The percentage of agreement between PSR scores and computed PSR scores derived from the traditional periodontal exam was almost 60%. Agreement increased as the level of periodontal disease increased. Nineteen percent of oral regions with significant periodontal disease would not have been detected if PSR was used alone. PSR often failed to reveal additional abnormalities that were identified during the traditional exam.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Rheumatology education and management skills in general practice: a national study of trainees. More pain, more tender points: is fibromyalgia just one end of a continuous spectrum?
• Abstracts: Prevention dollars and sense. Amplified DNA Testing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Filling in the gaps through research
• Abstracts: Obstructive sleep apnea. Improvement in pulmonary function and elastic recoil after lung-reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema
• Abstracts: Physical and psychosocial functioning of women and men after coronary artery bypass surgery. Physicians' Experiences and Beliefs Regarding Informal Consultation
• Abstracts: Different routes to professional nursing. Four-way split

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.