Aim Assessment of the thickness of gingival tissues using the probe visibility test is regarded as the method of choice during routine examinations. However, the probe visibility test has not been validated for patients with gingival pigmentation and its accuracy in populations with physiological gingival pigmentation is yet unknown. This study aims to evaluate different methods for the clinical assessment of gingival thickness in participants with varying levels of gingival pigmentation. Materials and Methods Buccal mucosa of the maxillary right central incisor teeth of 171 participants was evaluated using four methods, which were direct measurements using calliper, transgingival probing method using an endodontic probe, and probe visibility method using Colorvue biotype probe (CBP) and UNC‐15 probe. The pigmentation of the gingiva was assessed using the Dummett–Gupta oral pigmentation lesion index. Results The average gingival thickness of the selected population was 1.22 ± 0.38 mm with a distribution of 70% thick and 30% thin gingiva. Transgingival and calliper methods showed good agreement and significant correlation (r = 0.229; p = .003). Visual assessment using CBP and UNC‐15 probe showed poor agreement with the direct measurement methods. Gingival pigmentation significantly affected the probe visibility assessment, reducing the visibility of both the CBP (odds ratio [OR] = 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83–8.74) and UNC‐15 probe (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.05–3.23) while controlling for thickness of the gingiva. Conclusion The probe visibility method using either CBP or the UNC‐15 probe is affected by the degree of gingival pigmentation. Direct measurements using either a calliper or transgingival probing are recommended as methods to measure the gingival thickness in populations with gingival pigmentation.

No abstract

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience a higher prevalence of periodontitis. This study aimed to examine the variation of periodontitis experienced with different serotypes suffered by RA patients and to examine the relationship between the different medications taken for RA that may influence this relationship. Two hundred and sixty RA and control participants underwent standardized periodontal examinations. Medical, serological and radiological (Sharp/van der Heijde) records were assessed. Functional status was assessed using the administered Health Assessment Questionnaire. Moreover, disease parameters, including disease activity (DAS28-ESR) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF) seropositivity were evaluated. Periodontitis was higher in RA (71.54%) compared with controls (54.62%). The stage of periodontitis experienced by ACPA-positive participants were higher than APCA-negative participants. The probing pocket depth and recession experienced by RF-positive participants were higher than those who were RF-negative. RA participants on methotrexate had lower clinical attachment loss and lower periodontal probing depth compared with participants on a combination methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants taking corticosteroids had lower gingival index scores. The association between seropositivity and the type of medications taken with periodontal health parameters in this group of patients suggests that both seropositivity and medications taken are important modifiers in the relationship between periodontitis and RA.

No abstract

As a silent disease, individuals at risk of periodontitis are not easily identified until the disease has become severe. Early detection at the community level is essential, especially for general dental practitioners. The aim of this study was to design a comprehensive, user-friendly tool to screen patients’ periodontal health at community level and to evaluate users’ acceptance of its use. The periodontal health screening module was first developed by an expert panel of periodontists, public health specialists and general dentists. The developed module was tested for content acceptance on 156 graduating dental students from three public schools and later validated by 12 private general dental practitioners (GDPs) for reliability. Most of the students (64.1%) found the new module an easy assessment tool for periodontal health compared to the Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE). Most claimed that they understand the contents (80.8%) and accepted the designs (86.6%) and agreed (82.7%) that the new assessment module would allow them to screen patients anytime in the clinic. The interrater reliability as assessed between the GDPs and the investigators revealed acceptable agreement ranging from 62.5–100.0% (mean 89.6 ± 10.2%). The simplified digital periodontal health screening module showed promising acceptance for application in private general dental clinics.