Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background and Objective: Long-term tooth retention is the ultimate goal of periodontal therapy. Aim of this study was to evaluate tooth loss (TL) during 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in periodontal compromised patients and to identify factors influencing TL on patient level. Material and Methods: Patients were re-examined 120 ± 12 months after active periodontal therapy. TL and risk factors [smoking, initial diagnosis, SPT adherence, interleukin-1 polymorphism, cardiovascular diseases, age at baseline, bleeding on probing (BOP), change of practitioner, insurance status, number of SPT, marital and educational status] influencing TL on patient level were assessed. Results: One-hundred patients (52 female, mean age 65.6 ± 11 years) lost 121 of 2428 teeth (1.21 teeth/patient; 0.12 teeth/patient/y) during 10 years of SPT. Forty-two of these were lost for periodontal reasons (0.42 teeth/patient; 0.04 teeth/patient/y). Significantly more teeth were lost due to other reasons (P < .001). Smoking, baseline severity of periodontitis, non-adherent SPT, positive interleukin-1 polymorphism, marital and educational status, private insurance, older age at baseline and BOP, small number of SPT were identified as patient-related risk factors for TL (P < .05). Conclusion: During 120 ± 12 months of SPT, only a small number of teeth was lost in periodontally compromised patients showing the positive effect of a well-established periodontal treatment concept. The remaining risk for TL should be considered using risk-adopted SPT allocation.
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.