Table 1 Multilevel analysis of association between probe-induced ultrastructural damage and exploratory variables – Model 1: pairwise assessment of ESEM images (outcomes: 0-no damage vs. 1-damage; Model 2: transition of scores given on individual assessment of ESEM images (0-no damage vs. 1 –damage); Model 3: individual assessment of final scores (outcome: scores 0 to 4) adjusted for baseline scores)
From: Do the ball-ended probe cause less damage than sharp explorers?—An ultrastructural analysis
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | n (%) defects after probingawithout with | Prevalenceb ratio (95 % CI) | p value | Prevalenceb ratio (95 % CI) | p value | Rate ratiob(95 % CI) | p value | Rate ratioc(95 % CI) | p value | |
Surface type | 17 (34.70) | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.001 | - | - | ||||
Smooth (ref.) | 17 (34.70) | |||||||||
Occlusal | 8 (16.32) | 7 (14.28) | 1.07(0.46 to 2.47) | 1.36 (0.49 to 3.74) | 2.06 (1.33 to 3.17) | |||||
Surface condition | 6 (12.24) | 7 (14.28) | 0.59 | 0.67 (0.24 to 1.89) | 0.50 | 1.23 (0.70 to 2.18) | 0.001 | - | - | |
Sound (ref.) | ||||||||||
0.31 (0.04 to 2.57) | 2.55 (1.34 to 4.86) | |||||||||
Initial or moderate Extensive | 17 (34.70) | 12 (24.48) | 1.27 (0.50 to 3.22) | |||||||
2 (4.08) | 5 (10.20) | 0.62 (0.13–3.06) | ||||||||
Probe type | 5 (10.20) | 18 (36.73) | 0.01 | 0.38 (0.12 to 1.17) | 0.09 | 0.81 (0.52 to 1.28) | 0.74 | 0.38 (0.12 to 1.17) | 0.09 | |
Ball-ended (ref.) | ||||||||||
Sharp explorer | 20 (40.81) | 6 (12.24) | 0.28 (0.11–0.76) | |||||||
Examiner | 13 (26.53) | 13 (26.53) | 0.91 | 1.88 (0.68 to 5.18) | 0.28 | 0.98 (0.63 to 2.51) | 0.91 | |||
First (ref.) | ||||||||||
Second | 12 (24.48) | 11 (22.44) | 1.04 (0.48–2.29) | |||||||