Objectives:To determine the effectiveness of NEKS R&D Inc. probe N-123(Detectar), an instrument capable of detecting tartar based on its optical signature, by comparing it with a periodontal probe (WHO 621). Methods:Three clinicians performed an in-vitro evaluation of 150 teeth. Each of the clinician evaluated four areas on each tooth (covered with pig gingiva), using one of three randomized methods (probe WHO 621, detectar, and detectar plus tactile detection). Attempts were made to reproduce an in-vivo procedure in-vitro. Results:Bartlett's tests for equal variance, repeated anova tests and Pearson X2 test were used to analyse the data. All values received were significant at 95% or more. Results. Average detection of calculus on a specific area of tooth, with detectar(N), with detectar and tactile sense (N+) or tactile sense alone (S) were, (N 90.4%;N+ 73.3%;S 28.1%). As well detectar standardized the quality of detection (N op1 89.9%; N op2 89.5%; N op3 92.1%) whereas the conventional probing results vary considerably from one to another (S op1 20.2%; S op2 28.5%; S op3 42.2%). Compared to the periodontal probe, detectar reduces the under detection by close to 75% at the microscopic level. Detectar over detects in 2.6% of the surface of the root without calculus against 28.3% for the periodontal probe. A statistical analysis was done on variable time which indicated a tendency in favor of detectar to reduce the time of treatment S77.1 sec.; N62.2 sec. The operators could not be identified by their probing time when using detectar whereas they could with the probe, detectar allows for standardization of the clinical time of an examination between operators. Conclusions:Detectar significantly improve detection of calculus compare to the periodontal probe.

Back to the Periodontal Research - Diagnosis / Epidemiology Program
Back to the IADR/AADR/CADR 82nd General Session (March 10-13, 2004)

Top Level Search