OBJECTIVE: To determine the periodontal status in well controlled and poorly controlled type 2 diabetic patients compared with normal healthy individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Diabetes Management Centre, Services Hospital, Lahore, from November 2009 to January 2010. METHODOLOGY: Forty well controlled and forty poorly controlled type 2 diabetic subjects having good oral hygiene (scored according to simplified oral hygiene index) were compared with a control group of forty normal healthy individuals. Probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and attachment loss (AL) were recorded to obtain the periodontal status of each tooth, using a Michigan probe "0" with Williams marking. Glycemic control was evaluated by glycated Hb value. Using ANOVA and independent sample t-test, mean probing depth and attachment loss in each tooth type (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) were compared. RESULTS: Mean age of diabetic subjects was 58.86 ± 6.21 years and that of control group was 56.92 ± 6.91 years; 60% were females. Probing depth was greater in patients with poorly controlled diabetes compared to well controlled diabetic patients and non-diabetic controls (4.21 mm vs. 3.72 mm and 2.93 mm respectively, p < 0.001). Attachment loss also increased in poorly controlled diabetes (p < 0.001) compared to the control group and well controlled diabetes, however, the difference was not statistically significant when comparing well controlled to the control group (p > 0.05). Number of sites and mean percentage of sites with attachment loss of ³ 4 and ³ 6 mm was also significantly higher in poorly controlled diabetes compared to the control group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: Periodontal status as estimated by probing depth and degree of attachment loss deteriorates significantly with poor glycemic control in diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the periodontal status in well controlled and poorly controlled type 2 diabeticpatients compared with normal healthy individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparative study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Diabetes Management Centre, Services Hospital, Lahore, from November 2009 to January 2010. METHODOLOGY: Forty well controlled and forty poorly controlled type 2 diabetic subjects having good oral hygiene (scored according to simplified oral hygiene index) were compared with a control group of forty normal healthy individuals. Probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and attachment loss (AL) were recorded to obtain the periodontal status of each tooth, using a Michigan probe "0" with Williams marking. Glycemic control was evaluated by glycated Hb value. Using ANOVA and independent sample t-test, mean probing depth and attachment loss in each tooth type (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) were compared. RESULTS: Mean age of diabetic subjects was 58.86 ± 6.21 years and that of control group was 56.92 ± 6.91 years; 60% were females. Probing depth was greater in patients with poorly controlled diabetes compared to well controlled diabeticpatients and non-diabetic controls (4.21 mm vs. 3.72 mm and 2.93 mm respectively, p < 0.001). Attachment loss also increased in poorly controlled diabetes (p < 0.001) compared to the control group and well controlled diabetes, however, the difference was not statistically significant when comparing well controlled to the control group (p > 0.05). Number of sites and mean percentage of sites with attachment loss of ³ 4 and ³ 6 mm was also significantly higher in poorly controlled diabetes compared to the control group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSION: Periodontal status as estimated by probing depth and degree of attachment loss deteriorates significantly with poor glycemic control in diabetes.