PubMed · 3878376
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Garg, K K Kapoor. 1985. The quantitative gingival bleeding index.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3878376/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Gingival bleeding is an objective, easily assessed sign of inflammation that is associated with several periodontal diseases. Many bleeding indices have been devised; some assess bleeding as simply present or absent, whereas others use grading in an attempt to assess severity of bleeding. The choice of which index to use depends on whether the purpose is an epidemiological survey, a clinical study, diagnosis and treatment, or patient motivation. Bleeding may be elicited manually with toothpicks, dental floss or a periodontal probe, but a controlled-force probe, although more expensive, causes less trauma and less false-positive bleeding from healthy tissues. As a predictor of periodontal disease progression, bleeding on probing has low sensitivity owing to a high frequency of false-positive responses, but has high specificity in that failure to bleed indicates health. There is evidence that smokers have less, or delayed, gingival bleeding when compared with non-smokers; therefore smoking needs to be controlled for in studies of gingival bleeding. Measurement of gingival bleeding tendency should be an integral part of a comprehensive oral examination. In clinical practice, the use of a graded bleeding index is more likely to identify sites that are at risk of further destructive activity. For monitoring individual patients, both for response to initial therapy and during maintenance, a modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mSBI) with three bleeding scores is recommended in preference to dichotomous scoring of bleeding.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Sulcular bleeding after stimulation with a periodontal probe has been associated with the presence of an inflammatory lesion in the gingiva. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the placement of the probe in relation to the tooth surface, and the effect of standardising the probing pressure on the intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of the gingival bleeding when using a well-defined bleeding index. Four different variations were defined: parallel bleeding index (ParBI): when the probe is run along the marginal gingiva it is held parallel to the tooth surface. Angulated bleeding index (AngBI): the probe is held at an angle of approximately 60 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the tooth and in contact with the sulcular epithelium. Controlled force parallel bleeding index (CF-ParBI)/controlled force angulated bleeding index (CF-AngBI): the same procedure as described for the ParBI and AngBI is followed, but instead of a conventional (WHO-ASH/Dentsply) probe an adjustable force probe (Brodontic-ASH/dentsply), adjusted to 0.25 N is used. The results show that the agreement both within and between clinicians could hardly be rated as 'fair' on a site basis. Approximately one in every three sites was given a different assessment on the second examination. This might have been the consequence of the repeat examination. Agreement on a quadrant basis was slightly better. Furthermore, the direction of the probing influences the number of provoked bleeding sites. Angulation of the probe produces consistently less bleeding compared with parallel placement of the probe.