Ten-year changes of periodontitis grading using direct and indirect evidence: a retrospective evaluation.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Quintessence international Pub Date : 2024-08-16 DOI:10.3290/j.qi.b5687920

Sarah K Sonnenschein, Ingvi Reccius, Samuel Kilian, Ti-Sun Kim

{"title":"Ten-year changes of periodontitis grading using direct and indirect evidence: a retrospective evaluation.","authors":"Sarah K Sonnenschein, Ingvi Reccius, Samuel Kilian, Ti-Sun Kim","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b5687920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate two methods for assessing the changes in periodontitis grading in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) ten years (T10) after retrospective baseline (BL) grading.Materials and methods: The periodontitis grade of 51 SPT-patients was assessed using indirect evidence as the primary criterion for periodontitis progression at BL and T10 (radiographic bone loss/age index, periodontitis phenotype). Grading at T10 was also performed using the direct evidence for periodontitis progression (clinical attachment loss over the previous five years). The use of indirect evidence for periodontal progression at BL and T10 was defined as method 1 (M1) to assess the changes in periodontitis grading. The use of indirect evidence at BL and direct evidence at T10 was defined as method 2 (M2). Changes in periodontitis grading using M1 and M2 were evaluated (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Agreement between M1 and M2 was assessed (Cohen's kappa).Results: Indirect BL-grading revealed five grade B and 46 grade C patients. The indirect grading at T10 revealed 17 grade B and 34 grade C patients. The direct T10-grading classified all patients as grade C. M1 led to an overall improvement in periodontitis grading after ten years of SPT (p=0.00297), whereas M2 led to a deterioration (p=0.0369). The comparison between M1 and M2 showed that they lead to different results in terms of grading (Cohen's Kappa=0.116208).Conclusions: Periodontitis grading may change during SPT. Using indirect or direct evidence as the primary grading criterion during SPT may lead to different results.","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b5687920","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate two methods for assessing the changes in periodontitis grading in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) ten years (T10) after retrospective baseline (BL) grading.

Materials and methods: The periodontitis grade of 51 SPT-patients was assessed using indirect evidence as the primary criterion for periodontitis progression at BL and T10 (radiographic bone loss/age index, periodontitis phenotype). Grading at T10 was also performed using the direct evidence for periodontitis progression (clinical attachment loss over the previous five years). The use of indirect evidence for periodontal progression at BL and T10 was defined as method 1 (M1) to assess the changes in periodontitis grading. The use of indirect evidence at BL and direct evidence at T10 was defined as method 2 (M2). Changes in periodontitis grading using M1 and M2 were evaluated (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Agreement between M1 and M2 was assessed (Cohen's kappa).

Results: Indirect BL-grading revealed five grade B and 46 grade C patients. The indirect grading at T10 revealed 17 grade B and 34 grade C patients. The direct T10-grading classified all patients as grade C. M1 led to an overall improvement in periodontitis grading after ten years of SPT (p=0.00297), whereas M2 led to a deterioration (p=0.0369). The comparison between M1 and M2 showed that they lead to different results in terms of grading (Cohen's Kappa=0.116208).

Conclusions: Periodontitis grading may change during SPT. Using indirect or direct evidence as the primary grading criterion during SPT may lead to different results.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用直接和间接证据进行牙周炎分级的十年变化：一项回顾性评估。

目的评估两种方法，以评估接受支持性牙周治疗（SPT）的患者在回顾性基线（BL）分级十年（T10）后牙周炎分级的变化：采用间接证据作为BL和T10牙周炎进展的主要标准（影像学骨质流失/年龄指数、牙周炎表型），对51名SPT患者的牙周炎分级进行评估。在 T10 期还使用牙周炎进展的直接证据（过去五年的临床附着丧失情况）进行分级。在BL和T10使用牙周病进展的间接证据被定义为方法1（M1），以评估牙周炎分级的变化。在 BL 阶段使用间接证据，在 T10 阶段使用直接证据的方法被定义为方法 2（M2）。使用 M1 和 M2 对牙周炎分级的变化进行评估（Wilcoxon 符号秩检验）。评估了 M1 和 M2 之间的一致性（科恩卡帕）：间接BL分级显示有5名B级患者和46名C级患者。T10间接分级显示17例B级和34例C级患者。在 SPT 10 年后，M1 导致牙周炎分级总体改善（p=0.00297），而 M2 则导致牙周炎分级恶化（p=0.0369）。M1和M2之间的比较显示，它们导致了不同的分级结果（科恩卡帕=0.116208）：结论：牙周炎的分级在 SPT 期间可能会发生变化。结论：牙周炎的分级在 SPT 期间可能会发生变化，将间接证据或直接证据作为 SPT 期间的主要分级标准可能会导致不同的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Quintessence international 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.30%

发文量

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.