Objectives: to examine the prevalence, extent, and risk associations of untreated periodontitis. Materials and Methods:A purposive sample of subjects who were never treated for periodontal conditions was clinically examined after collecting information about their sociodemographic characteristics, medical conditions, oral health behaviors, perceived stress, and perceived social support.Results: A total of 431 subjects were recruited (response rate, 97.0%), and their mean age (SD) was 35.4 (13.3) years. Overall, high plaque levels were observed in all untreated individuals. The prevalence of periodontitis and severe (stage III/IV) periodontitis using the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology (AAP/EFP) classification were 85.4% and 48.5%, respectively. The prevalence of moderate-severe and severe periodontitis using the definitions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and AAP were 78.4% and 31.1%, respectively. The extent of periodontitis expressed as mean% of clinical attachment loss (CAL) ≥ 3 mm and CAL ≥ 5 mm were 34.9% and 14.4%, respectively, while the mean% of a periodontal probing depth (PPD) ≥4 mm and PPD ≥6 mm were 22.0% and 9.2%, respectively. Risk determinants associated with AAP/EFP periodontitis after the adjustment for other variables were age ≥35 years (odds ratio [OR] = 11.5) and lower income (OR = 2.5). Adjusted risk associations with stage II/IV periodontitis included age ≥35 years (OR = 8.2), males (OR = 2.5), lower income (OR = 2.3), and lower perceived stress (OR = 2.0). Adjusted risk associations with CDC/AAP moderate-severe periodontitis included age ≥35 years (OR = 12.0), lower income (OR = 2.1), and current cigarette smoking (OR = 4.2). Adjusted risk associations with CDC/AAP severe periodontitis included age ≥35 years (OR = 4.5), males (OR = 1.9), lower education (OR = 2.0), lower income (OR = 1.7), uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.0), and current cigarette smoking (OR = 2.3). Conclusions:The prevalence and extent of periodontitis were high in untreated subjects. Risk associations with untreated periodontitis included age ≥35 years,

This study was conducted to optimize the cone beam computed tomography image quality in implant dentistry using both clinical and quantitative image quality evaluation with measurement of the radiation dose. A natural bone human skull phantom and an image quality phantom were used to evaluate the images produced after changing the exposure parameters (kVp and mA). A 10 × 5 cm2 field of view was selected for average adult. Five scans were taken with varying kVp (70–90 kVp) first at fixed 4 mA. After assessment of the scans and selecting the best kVp, nine scans were taken with 2–12 mA, and the kVp was fixed at the optimal value. A clinical assessment of the implant‐related anatomical landmarks was done in random order by two blinded examiners. Quantitative image quality was assessed for noise/uniformity, artifact added value, contrast‐to‐noise ratio, spatial resolution, and geometrical distortion. A dosimetry index phantom and thimble ion chamber were used to measure the absorbed dose for each scan setting. The anatomical landmarks of the maxilla had good image quality at all kVp settings. To produce good quality images, the mandibular landmarks demanded higher exposure parameters than the maxillary landmarks. The quantitative image quality values were acceptable at all selected exposure settings. Changing the exposure parameters does not necessarily produce higher image quality outcomes but does affect the radiation dose to the patient. The image quality could be optimized for implant treatment planning at lower exposure settings and dose than the default settings.

No abstract