Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- risk factors (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Background: Estimating prognosis of periodontally affected teeth at the beginning of supportive periodontal care (SPC) is an important component for further treatment planning. This study aimed to evaluate tooth loss (TL) during 10 years of SPC in periodontally compromised patients and to identify tooth-related factors affecting TL.
Methods: Patients were re-examined 120 ± 12 months after accomplishment of active periodontal therapy. TL was defined as primary outcome variable and tooth-related factors (abutment status, furcation involvement [FI], tooth mobility, mean periodontal probing depth [PD], and clinical attachment level [CAL] at beginning of SPC, and initial bone loss [BL]) were estimated based on an adjusted regression analyses model.
Results: Ninety-seven patients (51 females and 46 males; mean age, 65.3 ± 11 years) lost 119 of 2,323 teeth (overall TL [OTL]: 0.12 teeth/patient/y) during 10 years of SPC. Forty of these teeth (33.6%) were lost for periodontal reasons (TLP; 0.04 teeth/patient/y). Significantly more teeth were lost due to other reasons (P <0.0001). TLP (OTL) only occurred in 5.9% (14.7%) of all teeth, when BL was at least 80%. Use as abutment tooth, FI degree III, tooth mobility degrees I and II, mean PD, and CAL positively correlated with OTL (P <0.05). For TLP, FI and tooth mobility degree III as well as mean CAL were identified as tooth-related prognostic factors (P <0.05).
Conclusions: During 10 years of SPC, most of the teeth (93.4%) of periodontally compromised patients were retained, showing the positive effect of a well-established treatment concept. Well-known tooth-related prognostic factors were confirmed.
Objective: To assess tooth loss (TL) in initially periodontally healthy/gingivitis (PHG) and periodontally compromised (PC) individuals during a 15- to 25-year follow-up in a specialist practice and to identify the factors influencing TL. Materials and methods: Patients were re-examined 240 ± 60 months after active periodontal therapy (PC) or initial examination (PHG). PHG patients were periodontally healthy or had gingivitis, and PC patients exhibited at least stage II periodontitis. TL, patient-related outcomes, and risk factors for TL were assessed at the patient level (group-relation, gender, age, smoking, bleeding on probing, educational status, mean number of visits/year). Results: Fifty-six PC patients receiving regular supportive periodontal care (12 female, mean age 49.1 ± 10.9 years, stage II: 10, stage III/IV: 46) lost 38 teeth (0.03 ± 0.05 teeth/year). Fifty-one PHG patients (23 female, mean age 34.5 ± 12.4 years) following regular oral prevention lost 39 teeth (0.04 ± 0.05 teeth/year) (p = .631). Both PC and PHG groups did not show any significant differences regarding visual analogue scale measurements [aesthetics (p = .309), chewing function (p = .362), hygiene (p = .989)] and overall Oral Health Impact Profile (p = .484). Age at the start of follow-up was identified as a risk factor for TL (p < .0001). Conclusion: PC and PHG patients exhibited similarly small TL rates over 240 ± 60 months, which should, however, be interpreted with caution in view of the group heterogeneity. Clinical trial number: DRKS00018840 (URL: https://drks.de).
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.