Instrument Selection and Application Used to Probe Dental Implants

Joohyun Cha, Chandur Wadhwani, Mansen Wang, Steven Hokett, James (Jim) Katancik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to survey clinicians' choice of peri-implant instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied as compared to that reported in current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were detected, Tukey's posthoc test was applied. RESULTS: The questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice. There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the clinicians may be higher than advised.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalThe International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
Volume34
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Dental Implants
Pressure
Dentists
Maxilla
Chi-Square Distribution
Mandible
Plastics
Analysis of Variance
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Instrument Selection and Application Used to Probe Dental Implants. / Cha, Joohyun; Wadhwani, Chandur; Wang, Mansen; Hokett, Steven; Katancik, James (Jim).

In: The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, Vol. 34, No. 1, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{25da9103fe6a48918e330014444f9d30,
title = "Instrument Selection and Application Used to Probe Dental Implants",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to survey clinicians' choice of peri-implant instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied as compared to that reported in current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were detected, Tukey's posthoc test was applied. RESULTS: The questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice. There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the clinicians may be higher than advised.",
author = "Joohyun Cha and Chandur Wadhwani and Mansen Wang and Steven Hokett and Katancik, {James (Jim)}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.11607/jomi.6950",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
journal = "The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants",
issn = "0882-2786",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Instrument Selection and Application Used to Probe Dental Implants

AU - Cha, Joohyun

AU - Wadhwani, Chandur

AU - Wang, Mansen

AU - Hokett, Steven

AU - Katancik, James (Jim)

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to survey clinicians' choice of peri-implant instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied as compared to that reported in current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were detected, Tukey's posthoc test was applied. RESULTS: The questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice. There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the clinicians may be higher than advised.

AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to survey clinicians' choice of peri-implant instrument selection and the application used to probe dental implants as well as to evaluate peri-implant probing force and pressure applied as compared to that reported in current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 clinicians (16 periodontists/periodontal residents, 16 restorative dentists and 16 hygienists) participated in the study. A questionnaire to determine the frequency and method of probing dental implants was provided and subject to the Chi-square test. Each participant was given a choice of three periodontal probes (Marquis, UNC15, Plastic) to use on the typodont and probing force was recorded blindly. Probing force and pressure data were analyzed with ANOVA among subject groups as well as probe types per site; where statistical differences (p < .05) were detected, Tukey's posthoc test was applied. RESULTS: The questionnaire resulted in a variety of answers although the majority demonstrated an agreement on probing implants in everyday practice. There was no significant difference among provider groups in regard to instrument selection, probing forces and pressure in both maxilla and mandible although the mean probing forces and pressures in all provider groups were higher than the suggested value reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that there are variations among clinical provider groups with regard to peri-implant probe instrument type used and forces applied, though these are not statistically significant. Probe tip diameter should be considered to avoid BOP false positives when probing dental implants especially as the forces generally used by the clinicians may be higher than advised.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060643354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060643354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.11607/jomi.6950

DO - 10.11607/jomi.6950

M3 - Article

VL - 34

JO - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

JF - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

SN - 0882-2786

IS - 1

ER -