Evaluation of the Reproducibility and Patients’ Self-reported Pain using Different Periodontal Probes: A Cross-sectional Clinical Trial

Aim: The type of probe used during periodontal probing can indeed influence patients' self-reported experiences of pain and discomfort.Hence, the current trial aims to evaluate the reproducibility and patients' self-reported pain using University of North Carolina 15 (UNC-15), Goldman Fox (GF), and pressure-sensitive (PS) probes. Materials and methods:The study included 60 participants, with 30 periodontally healthy participants (1,080 sites) and 30 participants with periodontitis (1,080 sites).A single calibrated examiner performed all the clinical assessments in all participants around six teeth, with a time interval of 15 minutes between examinations using UNC-15, GF, and PS probes.Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), gingival index (GI), and pain perception using the visual analog scale (VAS) were assessed.Results: Mean PPD was found to be least with UNC-15 (4.13 ± 0.74) and highest with the GF probe (4.21 ± 0.75), with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.259).GI scores showed variation between groups, with a weak positive correlation between the groups (r < 0.4).Greater VAS was observed with GF (3.71 ± 0.72) and least with PS (2.35 ± 1.08), with a moderate correlation among the different probes (r = 0.4 to 0.8).Conclusion: No significant differences in PPD and CAL measurements were found among the UNC-15, GF, and PS probes.However, the GF probe caused less bleeding, and the PS probe provided a more comfortable experience for patients, emphasizing the importance of considering patient-centered outcomes in periodontal probing.Clinical significance: While the probes may be equivalent in terms of measurement accuracy, the GF probe produces less bleeding, and the PS probe offers a more comfortable experience for patients, highlighting the importance of considering patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice.