Search

This paper presents the resultsof a study designed to determine (1) if advancement of a periodontal probe under a given force against healthy gingiva differed from its advancement under a similar force, against inflamed gingiva, and (2) to select the diameter which best distinguishes healthy gingiva from that which is inflamed to varying degrees. The teeth of eight beagle dogs were cleaned three times per week for two months until a Gingival Index (GI) of 0 and gingival fluid flow (GFF) of 9 or less, as measured by the Periotron, were obtained. Probes of diameters 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 mm were advanced perpendicularly against the attached gingiva in the incisor, premolar, and molar regions by an electromechanical device which simultaneously plotted force versus displacement following initial contact of the probe tip with the gingiva. These forces ranged from 0.1 to 0.9N. This process was repeated in the same animals following cessation of plaque control measures when the GI reached a value of 1 and GFF reached levels of 10 to 19. It was repeated again following placement of an irritating ligature when GI reached 2 and GFF greater than 20. An analysis of covariance showed significant differences between all three levels of health and disease for all probe diameters. F values for the 0.6 mm probe were highest at all probing forces indicating that this diameter most consistently discriminated variation of gingival health status.

The purpose of this studywas to locate the position of the periodontal probe tip using a pressure of 126 N/cm2(force of 0.30N using a round periodontal probe tip with a diameter of 0.55 mm). The influence of gingival inflammation on this position was also studied. Subjects with three levels of periodontal health and disease were entered into the study and each contributed one experimental tooth. At each site a standardized probing system was used to place a probe into a clinical pocket. The probe tip was luted to the test tooth surface. The tooth with its gingival tissue and probe tip was extracted, fixed, and processed for histological measurements. Distances in mm were obtained from the cemento‐enamel junction (CEJ) to the probe tip, to the base of the crevice/pocket, and to the most coronal connective tissue attachment. Analysis of the data indicated that clinical inflammation was not a factor in the placement of the probe tip at crevice/pocket's landmarks relative to the CEJ; however variability of probing may have caused the nonsignificance. The probing system placed the probe tip 0.66 mm apical to the base of the crevice/pocket and 0.06 mm coronal to the most coronal connective tissue attachment. These conclusions corroborated the results of the previous study in dogs which predicted probe placement of 0.44 mm apical to the base of the crevice using the standardized pressure of this probing system. J Periodontol 1995; 66:184–190.

This study was undertakento determine the effect of gingival inflammation and probing pressure on probe tip placement in relation to the base of the gingival crevice and the most coronal connective tissue attachment fibers. Nine young male beagle dogs were divided into three groups as determined by clinical status of the gingiva following implementation of a protocol designed to produce gingival health and disease. An electromechanical device was used to advance 0.6 mm diameter probes into the facial gingival crevices of selected teeth and to obtain force‐displacement curves. The instrument stopped the probe at pressures of either 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280, or 2560 kPa which were randomly allocated to 12 test teeth in each dog. After the probe came to rest, it was attached to the tooth. When all 12 probes were attached, the animal was sacrificed. Blocks consisting of gingiva, probe, and tooth were processed to obtain two buccolingual sections, one containing the probe and the other immediately adjacent to it. Clinical and histometric measurements were performed and the data evaluated. Although three groups of animals were discernable by clinical criteria, only two groups, health and disease, could be formulated based on the degree of histologic inflammation. The histologic grouping was used in data analysis. Histometric distances from the cemento‐enamel junction to the base of the crevice (cJ), to most coronal connective tissue attachment (cC) and to the probe tip (cP) all increased with change from health to disease. However, changes in health/disease did not influence differences between distances (cP‐cJ,cP‐cC). It was therefore concluded that inflammation was not a factor in probe tip position relative either to the base of the crevice or to the most coronal connective tissue attachment. However, pressure was a significant factor. Therefore, the pressures at which cP = cJ and cP = cC were computed. Placement of a probe at the base of the crevice required an estimated 474 kPa or a force of. 17 N using a probe of 0.6 mm in diameter. The pressure required to place the probe at the most coronal connective tissue attachment was estimated at 1927 kPa or a force of.69 N using a probe of similar diameter. (J Periodontol1989;60:498– 505.)