Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025
Methods for Clinical Assessment in Periodontal Diagnostics: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stødle I H, Imber J-C, Shanbhag S V, Salvi G E, Verket A, Stähli A
Аннотация
AIM: This systematic review aimed to answer the following PECOS questions: In human subjects with untreated periodontitis (Q1) or enrolled in supportive periodontal care (SPC) (Q2) (P), are there clinical assessment methods (E) other than the contemporary manual probe (C) that increase diagnostic accuracy or reliability when examining/screening for periodontitis (Q1) or when monitoring disease stability or progression (Q2) (O) as demonstrated in clinical studies (S)?
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single search strategy was devised to identify relevant studies addressing Q1 and Q2 from four electronic databases. The main clinical parameters considered were probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS: Of the 5417 identified titles, 26 studies were finally included. The evidence revealed that manual probes generally yielded higher PD values, while pressure-sensitive/electronic probes demonstrated a trend for higher inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility. No clear trend for the superiority of one probe over the other could be identified for Q1 or Q2.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the present systematic review indicated no clear benefit from the use of pressure-sensitive/electronic probes over contemporary manual probes. Manual probes remain the clinical standard for the diagnosis and monitoring of periodontitis patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single search strategy was devised to identify relevant studies addressing Q1 and Q2 from four electronic databases. The main clinical parameters considered were probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS: Of the 5417 identified titles, 26 studies were finally included. The evidence revealed that manual probes generally yielded higher PD values, while pressure-sensitive/electronic probes demonstrated a trend for higher inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility. No clear trend for the superiority of one probe over the other could be identified for Q1 or Q2.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the present systematic review indicated no clear benefit from the use of pressure-sensitive/electronic probes over contemporary manual probes. Manual probes remain the clinical standard for the diagnosis and monitoring of periodontitis patients.