ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Comparative assessment of conventional periodontal probes and CEJ handpiece of electronic probes in the diagnosis and primary care of periodontal disease.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in therapeutic probiotics: insights from human trials.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of clinical indices with halitosis grading in chronic periodontitis: A randomized control trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesConventional probes (CPs) have been considered acceptable as diagnostic tools to measure probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) but are affected by multiple variables. Electronic probes (EPs) provide controlled force, digital readout and data storage in computers. The objectives were to compare the reproducibility in the measurement of PPD and CAL by CP and the newly introduced CEJ handpiece of EP and intra-examiner and inter-examiner errors done in two phases. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Selected 720 periodontal sites in 1
resultsThe intra- examiner and inter-examiner analyses revealed that Pearson's correlation coefficient was above 0.080 and 0.722 in the ≤4 mm and >4 mm pockets, respectively. Mean difference was not statistically significant in both groups except in the intra- examiner findings in the 2
conclusionIn conclusion, EP is advantageous for research purposes by providing automatic recording and long-term maintenance of data storage without the need of an assistant and patient education and motivation, whereas CP appears to be more useful in routine periodontal examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.