MedTrace Logo

A Comparison Between the Repeatability of Probing Pocket Depths Achieved With Manual and Automated Periodontal Probes

NCT01622192 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 30

Last updated 2024-01-05

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

The aim of the study is to determine the best method for measuring the extent and severity of the gum disease by comparing the repeatability of probing depths achieved by a manual probe when compared to an automated probe.

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis to be tested includes

* The automated probe does not improve the reproducibility of periodontal probing when compared to manual probing recordings
* The automated probe shows no advantage when comparing the reproducibility of

* Moderate sites
* Deep sites
* Single vs. multirooted teeth
* Different sextants
* Different surfaces of teeth Buccal vs. palatal/lingual Mesial vs. mid vs. distal

Conditions

  • Periodontal Disease

Interventions

DEVICE

Florida Probe automated probe

Comparisons between the reproducibility of readings taken by an automated probe and a manual probe

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Gareth S Griffiths, BDS MRD FDS · University of Sheffield

Study Design

Allocation
NA
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Model
SINGLE_GROUP

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2012-04-30
Primary Completion
2013-05-31
Completion
2013-05-31

Countries

  • United Kingdom

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT01622192 on ClinicalTrials.gov