Interexaminer reliability of the assessment of clinical furcation parameters as related to different probes

• Published in: European journal of oral sciences Vol. 107; no. 1; pp. 2 - 8
• Main Authors: Eickholz, Peter, Steinbrenner, Harald, Lenhard, Markus, Marquardt, Moritz, Holle, Rolf
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen, DK Munksgaard International Publishers 01.02.1999
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Calibration; Dentistry; Equipment Design; Female; Furcation Defects - diagnosis; Furcation Defects - pathology; Furcation Defects - surgery; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Molar - pathology; Observer Variation; Periodontal Attachment Loss - diagnosis; Periodontal Attachment Loss - pathology; Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery; Periodontal Pocket - diagnosis; Periodontal Pocket - pathology; Periodontal Pocket - surgery; Periodontics - instrumentation; Periodontitis - pathology; Pressure; Reproducibility of Results
• ISSN: 0909-8836; 1600-0722
• DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos107102.x

The aim of this study was to investigate the interexaminer reliability of the assessment of clinical furcation diagnosis. Horizontal attachment level (PAL-H) measurements were obtained by 3 examiners in 6 molars in each of 10 patients with advanced periodontitis. In each patient, 3 molars were examined using a 3 mm incrementally marked Nabers probe, and 3 molars were examined using a pressure-calibrated plastic probe (TPS). Assignment of the probe was random, and the schedule of examiners was changed for each patient. Clinical assessments were validated by intrasurgical measurements in 6 patients. Sixty molars with 152 furcations were investigated. Multifactorial analysis of variance revealed that PAL-H measurements were significantly influenced by examiner and furcation location, whereas type of probe and schedule of examination had no influence. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient was r = 0.695. The difference between clinical and intrasurgical PAL-H assessment was influenced by examiner and location but not by type of probe. Approximately 70% of the total variance of PAL-H measurements was due to the variance of true values, whereas 30% of the variance may be explained by interexaminer and intraexaminer variance. The pressure-calibrated TPS probe failed to increase the interexaminer reliability of PAL-H measurements when compared to a Nabers probe.