R Viswa Chandra1. 1. Department of Periodontics, Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences, Hunasamaranahalli, Yelahanka, Bangalore 562 157, India. viswachandra@hotmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study was designed to develop a new periodontal risk assessment model based on the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) model by Lang and Tonetti, and to evaluate the risk assessment capability of the proposed model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis were selected randomly and a thorough examination and charting of the periodontal status was performed. An intra-oral periapical radiograph of the area with the deepest probing depth was also taken. The following parameters were recorded: percentage of sites with BOP, number of sites with pocket depths > or = 5mm, number of teeth lost, bone loss/age ratio, attachment loss/age ratio, diabetic and smoking status, dental status, other systemic factors and risk determinants. Using Microsoft Excel, the parameters were plotted on the radar chart as per the original and the proposed model. RESULTS: Of the cases identified by the original model, 42.3% were high-risk cases and 30.8% of the cases were low-risk cases. In the proposed model, 46.2% of high-risk cases and 46.2% of low-risk cases were identified. Only 7.7% of the cases identified with the new model were moderate-risk cases. Statistical analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the risk scores of the two models. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that risk assessment by this model does not vary significantly as compared to the original model, and both are equally adept at detecting potential risk groups.
PURPOSE: The present study was designed to develop a new periodontal risk assessment model based on the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) model by Lang and Tonetti, and to evaluate the risk assessment capability of the proposed model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis were selected randomly and a thorough examination and charting of the periodontal status was performed. An intra-oral periapical radiograph of the area with the deepest probing depth was also taken. The following parameters were recorded: percentage of sites with BOP, number of sites with pocket depths > or = 5mm, number of teeth lost, bone loss/age ratio, attachment loss/age ratio, diabetic and smoking status, dental status, other systemic factors and risk determinants. Using Microsoft Excel, the parameters were plotted on the radar chart as per the original and the proposed model. RESULTS: Of the cases identified by the original model, 42.3% were high-risk cases and 30.8% of the cases were low-risk cases. In the proposed model, 46.2% of high-risk cases and 46.2% of low-risk cases were identified. Only 7.7% of the cases identified with the new model were moderate-risk cases. Statistical analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the risk scores of the two models. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that risk assessment by this model does not vary significantly as compared to the original model, and both are equally adept at detecting potential risk groups.
Authors: Thiago Morelli; Kevin L Moss; John S Preisser; James D Beck; Kimon Divaris; Di Wu; Steven Offenbacher Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.993