Suphakan Pakdeesettakul1, Orawan Charatkulangkun1,2, Attawood Lertpimonchai1,2, Hom-Lay Wang3, Pimchanok Sutthiboonyapan4,5,6. 1. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Center of Excellence in Periodontal Disease and Dental Implant, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henry Dunant Rd., Wangmai, Pathumwan, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand. Pimchanok.S@chula.ac.th. 5. Center of Excellence in Periodontal Disease and Dental Implant, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Pimchanok.S@chula.ac.th. 6. Center of Excellence in Genomics and Precision Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Pimchanok.S@chula.ac.th.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the simple flowcharts for practical periodontal diagnosis based on the 2018 new periodontal classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized two-period crossover trial, 152 participants assigned a periodontal diagnosis for 25 case scenarios using the flowcharts (test group) and using the consensus reports (control group). Self-confidence questionnaires were completed at the end of each period. Questionnaires about the perception of the flowcharts were completed at the end of the study. The accuracy of the diagnosis, the time used, and participants' confidence in assigning a diagnosis between using the flowcharts and using the consensus reports were compared. RESULTS: The mixed model analysis indicated that using the flowcharts was associated with a significant increase in the accuracy of the periodontal diagnosis, compared with using the consensus reports (P = 0.008). After the subgroup analysis, a significant increase in the accuracy of the full diagnosis and the accuracy of periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis identification was seen in only the dental students. The time used for making the diagnosis using flowcharts and using consensus reports was similar. The self-confidence scores significantly increased when using flowcharts for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The simple flowcharts are user-friendly tools that can aid clinicians in accurately assigning a periodontal diagnosis and improve clinicians' confidence in assigning a periodontal diagnosis using the new periodontal classification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The flowcharts can be used for periodontal screening and assigning periodontal diagnosis using the new classification in routine practice.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the simple flowcharts for practical periodontal diagnosis based on the 2018 new periodontal classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized two-period crossover trial, 152 participants assigned a periodontal diagnosis for 25 case scenarios using the flowcharts (test group) and using the consensus reports (control group). Self-confidence questionnaires were completed at the end of each period. Questionnaires about the perception of the flowcharts were completed at the end of the study. The accuracy of the diagnosis, the time used, and participants' confidence in assigning a diagnosis between using the flowcharts and using the consensus reports were compared. RESULTS: The mixed model analysis indicated that using the flowcharts was associated with a significant increase in the accuracy of the periodontal diagnosis, compared with using the consensus reports (P = 0.008). After the subgroup analysis, a significant increase in the accuracy of the full diagnosis and the accuracy of periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis identification was seen in only the dental students. The time used for making the diagnosis using flowcharts and using consensus reports was similar. The self-confidence scores significantly increased when using flowcharts for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The simple flowcharts are user-friendly tools that can aid clinicians in accurately assigning a periodontal diagnosis and improve clinicians' confidence in assigning a periodontal diagnosis using the new periodontal classification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The flowcharts can be used for periodontal screening and assigning periodontal diagnosis using the new classification in routine practice.
Authors: Panos N Papapanou; Mariano Sanz; Nurcan Buduneli; Thomas Dietrich; Magda Feres; Daniel H Fine; Thomas F Flemmig; Raul Garcia; William V Giannobile; Filippo Graziani; Henry Greenwell; David Herrera; Richard T Kao; Moritz Kebschull; Denis F Kinane; Keith L Kirkwood; Thomas Kocher; Kenneth S Kornman; Purnima S Kumar; Bruno G Loos; Eli Machtei; Huanxin Meng; Andrea Mombelli; Ian Needleman; Steven Offenbacher; Gregory J Seymour; Ricardo Teles; Maurizio S Tonetti Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Iain L C Chapple; Brian L Mealey; Thomas E Van Dyke; P Mark Bartold; Henrik Dommisch; Peter Eickholz; Maria L Geisinger; Robert J Genco; Michael Glogauer; Moshe Goldstein; Terrence J Griffin; Palle Holmstrup; Georgia K Johnson; Yvonne Kapila; Niklaus P Lang; Joerg Meyle; Shinya Murakami; Jacqueline Plemons; Giuseppe A Romito; Lior Shapira; Dimitris N Tatakis; Wim Teughels; Leonardo Trombelli; Clemens Walter; Gernot Wimmer; Pinelopi Xenoudi; Hiromasa Yoshie Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Jack G Caton; Gary Armitage; Tord Berglundh; Iain L C Chapple; Søren Jepsen; Kenneth S Kornman; Brian L Mealey; Panos N Papapanou; Mariano Sanz; Maurizio S Tonetti Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 6.993