OBJECTIVES: To study root caries and risk profiles using the Cariogram in relation to periodontal disease severity and to analyse indicators associated with high caries risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional examination was carried out on 112 patients with periodontal disease from two government clinics in Saudi Arabia. The investigation comprised a questionnaire, bitewing radiographs, measurement of salivary secretion rate, buffering capacity and cariogenic microorganisms, and registration of periodontal status, plaque amount and coronal and root caries/fillings (DFT and RDFT). The data were then entered into the Cariogram pedagogic model to illustrate the caries risk profiles. RESULTS: Patients were grouped according to periodontal disease severity into one of three groups: (1) gingivitis (n = 44); (2) mild-to-moderate periodontitis (n = 33); and (3) severe periodontitis (n = 35). The prevalence of RDFT in the total sample was 17%. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in number of root lesions or mean 'Actual Chance to Avoid New Cavities' (Chance-AC) according to the Cariogram. Of the total sample, 22% displayed high caries risk (Chance-AC ≤ 40%). The most significant risk indicators in high caries risk patients were infrequent use of fluoride and unfavourable salivary and microbial parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Root surface lesions and high caries risk were present in about one-fifth of the patients referred for periodontal treatment. A combination of risk indicators rather than a single one contributed to the increased risk. Caries and risk profiles were not significantly correlated with periodontal disease severity.
OBJECTIVES: To study root caries and risk profiles using the Cariogram in relation to periodontal disease severity and to analyse indicators associated with high caries risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional examination was carried out on 112 patients with periodontal disease from two government clinics in Saudi Arabia. The investigation comprised a questionnaire, bitewing radiographs, measurement of salivary secretion rate, buffering capacity and cariogenic microorganisms, and registration of periodontal status, plaque amount and coronal and root caries/fillings (DFT and RDFT). The data were then entered into the Cariogram pedagogic model to illustrate the caries risk profiles. RESULTS:Patients were grouped according to periodontal disease severity into one of three groups: (1) gingivitis (n = 44); (2) mild-to-moderate periodontitis (n = 33); and (3) severe periodontitis (n = 35). The prevalence of RDFT in the total sample was 17%. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in number of root lesions or mean 'Actual Chance to Avoid New Cavities' (Chance-AC) according to the Cariogram. Of the total sample, 22% displayed high caries risk (Chance-AC ≤ 40%). The most significant risk indicators in high caries risk patients were infrequent use of fluoride and unfavourable salivary and microbial parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Root surface lesions and high caries risk were present in about one-fifth of the patients referred for periodontal treatment. A combination of risk indicators rather than a single one contributed to the increased risk. Caries and risk profiles were not significantly correlated with periodontal disease severity.