We aimed to compare the effects caused on dental surfaces by probing with sharp standard explorers and a ball ended probes in primary teeth. We also intended to verify if the clinical experience and surface condition could interfere in the damages provoked by both methods.
Method:
Forty-nine primary teeth were selected and divided into four different groups according to probe type (explorer vs. ball ended) and examiner’s clinical experience (clinical senior lecturer vs. first-year undergraduate student). The examiner was asked to probe a pre-determined area in the tooth. Each instrument was changed each 5th assessment. Both examiners used both probes, in different occasions. All teeth were analyzed by a non-destructive environmental scanning electronic microscopy (ESEM) before and after the probing procedures. Two external examiners evaluated the ESEM images in pairs (before and after) and scored as: 0-no damage; 1-slight probing marks visible; 2-distinct probing marks visible; 3- probing marks with discontinuity; 4-enamel break-offs. Scores assigned were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test.
Result:
The most common damage observed on dental surfaces of primary teeth (45%) were the probing marks without discontinuity (scores 1 and 2). The surfaces probed with sharp explorers presented more severe harms independently of examiner’s experience (explorers mean score ± SD – experienced: 1.69±1.2; inexperienced: 1.15±1.2- p>0.05). No difference was also observed when both examiners used the ball ended probe (ball ended mean score ± SD – experienced: 0.23±1.2; inexperienced: 0.5±1.2, p>0.05). However, when trained, the examiner tend to damage hardly less using the ball ended probe than sharp standard explorer (p<0.002).
Conclusion:
Sharp explorers cause more damages on dental surfaces than ball ended probes. Although ball ended probes result in less damage, inexperienced examiners should be trained for probing gently in order to minimize probing marks on dental su rfaces.