论文部分内容阅读
目的:评估电子压力敏感牙周探针(简称电子牙周探针)和普通牙周探针对基础治疗前慢性牙周炎探诊深度检查的一致性和可重复性。方法:在基础治疗前,对12例慢性牙周炎患者随机抽取2颗无明显龈上牙石患牙,共计144个牙周探诊位点,由两位测量者分别使用电子牙周探针和普通牙周探针进行牙周探诊深度(PD)测量各2次,用组内相关系数(intraclass cor-relation coefficient,ICC)来比较测量者本身以及检测结果之间的一致性;以配对t检验比较不同测量者使用同种牙周探针测量PD值的可重复性;以线性回归模型分析造成两种牙周探针测量结果差别的因素。结果:同一测量者、同一方法以及两种方法的组内相关系数(ICC)均大于0.8,说明一致性较好。配对t检验结果表明无论电子牙周探针还是普通牙周探针在不同测量者之间测得的PD结果无显著性差异(P>0.05),说明两种探针的可重复性均好。线性回归模型结果显示,在考虑了测量者(t=0.26,P=0.793)、测量时间(t=-0.17,P=0.866)后,测量结果间的差别主要是由于牙周袋的深浅(t=72.42,P<0.001)引起的,与测量工具(t=-0.44,P=0.662)无关,说明电子牙周探针和普通牙周探针的测量结果高度一致(线性相关系数r=0.88,P<0.001)。结论:在测量者经过正规培训后,被测牙无明显龈上牙石情况下,电子牙周探针和普通牙周探针均适用于慢性牙周炎基础治疗前探诊深度的测量。
OBJECTIVE: To assess the consistency and repeatability of the depth of probing of chronic periodontitis before the initial treatment with electronic pressure-sensitive periodontal probes (ESGs) and ordinary periodontal probes. Methods: Before the basic treatment, 12 cases of chronic periodontitis patients were randomly selected two obvious no suprapatellar calf teeth, a total of 144 periodontal exploration sites, the two were measured by electronic periodontal probe and Periodontal probing depth (PD) measurements were performed twice on average periodontal probes using intraclass cor-relation coefficient (ICC) to compare the agreement between themselves and the test results; paired t The test was used to compare the repeatability of PD values measured by the same type of periodontal probe with different kinds of test persons. The linear regression model was used to analyze the factors that caused the difference between the two periodontal probe measurements. Results: The intra-group correlation coefficients (ICC) of the same measurer, the same method and the two methods were all greater than 0.8, indicating good agreement. Paired t-test results showed that there was no significant difference (P> 0.05) in the PD results measured by different periodontal probes or ordinary periodontal probes, indicating that the repeatability of the two probes is good. The linear regression model showed that the differences between the measurements were mainly due to the depth of the periodontal pocket (t = -0.26, P = 0.793) and the measurement time (t = -0.17, P = = 72.42, P <0.001), which was not related to the measurement tool (t = -0.44, P = 0.662). The results showed that the electronic periodontal probe and the ordinary periodontal probe were highly consistent (r = 0.88, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The electronic periodontal probe and the ordinary periodontal probe are suitable for the measurement of the probing depth before the basic periodontal treatment of chronic periodontitis under the condition of regular training of the measurers and no apparent supragingival calculus.