Not much supragingival calculus
and the probing looks within normal
limits, with only slight bleeding.
You tell him he's doing fine and
he's happy to hear that, reporting
that he only brushes and never
flosses. You begin instrumentation
and suddenly, you drop into 4-6mm
interproximal pockets and find subgingival
calculus. What happened?
How could the probing measurements
have been so wrong?
Now, after just telling the patient
that everything looks fine, you find he actually has early to moderate
periodontal disease in all posterior interproximal areas.
The reason is simple and we can blame it on researchers and
educators who listen to the researchers. Remember back in
school when you were taught to probe with the tip of the probe
in constant contact with the root surface, holding the probe parallel
to the long axis of the tooth and making sure to probe the
line angles of all the teeth? Researchers wanted their probing to
be reproducible, so rather than angling the probe to reach the
mid-interproximal surface and find any crater development,
they kept the probe parallel to the long axis of the tooth and
guided the probe around the tooth, from line angle to line angle.
This method, while being easily reproducible, will not detect
any mid-interproximal pockets. This significantly underestimates
the prevalence of periodontal disease. According to the
American Academy of Periodontology, periodontal disease
might be underestimated by as much as 50 percent.
Good educators followed the direction of researchers and
instructed years of students to hold the probe parallel to the long
axis of the tooth and measure around the tooth from line angle
to line angle. This explains why interproximal defects can be
missed so easily.
Next time you see a patient who hasn't been in for a while
and who doesn't practice daily interproximal oral hygiene, try
probing according to Dr. Howard Farran. Wish I could take
credit for this idea, but it was Howard who came up with it and
it's a great idea! No more probing
around the teeth as instructed in
school and as so many computer
programs require. Instead, separate
facial and lingual surfaces from
interproxiaml surfaces, making two
passes with the probe. First, probe
all the brushing surfaces. Tell the
patient you are doing a new test for
gum disease and you will say the
measurements out loud so he can
hear them. The numbers should be
1 to 3, anything 4 or higher is disease
and any bleeding points are a
sign of infection. After probing the brushing surfaces, tell the
patient you are now going to check for infection on his flossing
surfaces. Same rules about numbers – 1 to 3 are healthy, anything
4 or higher is disease. After you finish this probing system
on patients, they will know their periodontal status before you
say another word.
Make these two simple changes and you will never overlook
interproximal disease again. First, be sure to angle your probe
into the mid-interproximal, despite what you were taught in
school. Second, probe brushing surfaces first, and then probe
flossing surfaces. You might be surprised to find that you too
have underestimated the prevalence of periodontal disease in
your practice.
|