Leonardo Trombelli1,2, Roberto Farina1,2, Cléverson O Silva3, Dimitris N Tatakis4. 1. Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 2. Operative Unit of Dentistry, University-Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 3. Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Brazil. 4. Division of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical gingival inflammation is a well-defined site-specific condition for which several measurement systems have been proposed and validated, and epidemiological studies consistently indicate its high prevalence globally. However, it is clear that defining and grading a gingival inflammatory condition at a site level (i.e. a "gingivitis site") is completely different from defining and grading a "gingivitis case" (GC) (i.e. a patient affected by gingivitis), and that a "gingivitis site" does not necessarily mean a "GC". The purpose of the present review is to summarize the evidence on clinical, biochemical, microbiologic, genetic markers as well as symptoms associated with plaque-induced gingivitis and to propose a set of criteria to define GC. IMPORTANCE: A universally accepted case definition for gingivitis would provide the necessary information to enable oral health professionals to assess the effectiveness of their prevention strategies and treatment regimens; help set priorities for therapeutic actions/programs by health care providers; and undertake surveillance. FINDINGS: Based on available methods to assess gingival inflammation, GC could be simply, objectively and accurately identified and graded using bleeding on probing score (BOP%) CONCLUSIONS: A patient with intact periodontium would be diagnosed as a GC according to a BOP score ≥ 10%, further classified as localized (BOP score ≥ 10% and ≤30%) or generalized (BOP score > 30%). The proposed classification may also apply to patients with a reduced periodontium, where a GC would characterize a patient with attachment loss and BOP score ≥ 10%, but without BOP in any site probing ≥4 mm in depth.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical gingival inflammation is a well-defined site-specific condition for which several measurement systems have been proposed and validated, and epidemiological studies consistently indicate its high prevalence globally. However, it is clear that defining and grading a gingival inflammatory condition at a site level (i.e. a "gingivitis site") is completely different from defining and grading a "gingivitis case" (GC) (i.e. a patient affected by gingivitis), and that a "gingivitis site" does not necessarily mean a "GC". The purpose of the present review is to summarize the evidence on clinical, biochemical, microbiologic, genetic markers as well as symptoms associated with plaque-induced gingivitis and to propose a set of criteria to define GC. IMPORTANCE: A universally accepted case definition for gingivitis would provide the necessary information to enable oral health professionals to assess the effectiveness of their prevention strategies and treatment regimens; help set priorities for therapeutic actions/programs by health care providers; and undertake surveillance. FINDINGS: Based on available methods to assess gingival inflammation, GC could be simply, objectively and accurately identified and graded using bleeding on probing score (BOP%) CONCLUSIONS: A patient with intact periodontium would be diagnosed as a GC according to a BOP score ≥ 10%, further classified as localized (BOP score ≥ 10% and ≤30%) or generalized (BOP score > 30%). The proposed classification may also apply to patients with a reduced periodontium, where a GC would characterize a patient with attachment loss and BOP score ≥ 10%, but without BOP in any site probing ≥4 mm in depth.
Authors: Jan E Clarkson; Nigel B Pitts; Beatriz Goulao; Dwayne Boyers; Craig R Ramsay; Ruth Floate; Hazel J Braid; Patrick A Fee; Fiona S Ord; Helen V Worthington; Marjon van der Pol; Linda Young; Ruth Freeman; Jill Gouick; Gerald M Humphris; Fiona E Mitchell; Alison M McDonald; John Dt Norrie; Kirsty Sim; Gail Douglas; David Ricketts Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014