Medizin
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Aim: To evaluate the level of agreement between the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) and the periodontal risk calculator (PRC).
Materials and methods: Periodontal risk was retrospectively assessed among 50 patients using PRA and PRC. Both methods were modified. PRA by assessing probing pocket depths and bleeding on probing at four (PRA4) and six (PRA6) sites per tooth, PRC by permanently marking or unmarking the dichotomously selectable factors “irregular recall,” “oral hygiene in need of improvement” and “completed scaling and root planing” for PRC. Agreement between PRA and PRCred (summarized risk categories) was determined using weighted kappa.
Results: Fifty patients enrolled in periodontal maintenance (48% female, age: 63.8 ± 11.2 years) participated. PRA4 and PRA6 matched in 32 (64%) patients (κ‐coefficient = 0.48, p < .001). There was 100% agreement between both PRC versions. There was minimal agreement of PRA6 and PRCred (66%, 28% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.34; p = .001). PRA4 and PRCred did not match (60% agreement, 34% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.23; p = .13). For the SPT diagnosis of severe periodontitis, PRA6 and PRCred agreed weakly (κ‐coefficient = 0.44; p = .004).
Conclusion: PRA and PRC showed a minimal agreement. Specific disease severity may result in improved agreement.
Aim: Evaluation of long‐term results after connective tissue graft (CTG) using the envelope technique and the effect on patient‐centred outcomes (Oral Health Impact Profile: OHIP) in a private practice setting.
Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients (11 female, mean age: 45.0 ± 8.88 years) underwent root coverage procedure using a CTG involving maxillary Miller class I teeth. Pre‐operatively, 3 and 120 ± 12 months after surgery, all patients were examined, completed OHIP questionnaire, and were asked to assess improvement and their satisfaction with the results of surgery. All procedures were performed by the same investigator.
Results: Recession depth at 3 months of 1.19 ± 0.93 mm was reduced to that of 0.63 ± 0.64 mm at 120 ± 12 months after surgery (p = .117). Recession width (−1.23 ± 2.27 mm) decreased as well (p = .117), while relative root coverage increased from 48.46 ± 32.18% at 3 months to 71.22 ± 30.86% at 120 months (p = .011). The number of cases with complete root coverage increased from two (15.4%) to six (40.0%) from 3 to 120 months (p = .046). OHIP score (12.07 ± 10.15) did not change after 10 years (12.13 ± 9.86, p = .889). Ten years after surgery, 12 patients (80%) reported they would make the decision again to undergo CTG transplantation.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study design with a high risk of bias in a practice setting, long‐term stability of recession reduction, OHIP and patient‐perceived satisfaction remained stable over 10 years.