A Two‐Domain Self‐Report Measure of Periodontal Disease Has Good Accuracy for Periodontitis Screening in Dental School Outpatients

Abstract

A two-domain self-report measure combining two self-report items with age and sex has good sensitivity and specificity for periodontitis screening in a white, university-based population. The proposed self-report measure can be valuable for periodontitis screening in resource-limited settings where gold standard clinical examination may not be pragmatic. Further validation studies are required to assess whether findings from this study are context-specific.

Socioeconomic status and self-reported periodontal symptoms in community-dwelling individuals: data from the Korea Community Health Surveys of 2011 and 2013

“…Although efforts have been made to evaluate periodontal disease accurately through self‐reported measures, previous studies have shown some inconsistent results. In previous investigations, the questionnaire was used to investigate its ability to predict clinical periodontal disease severity.…”

“…A recent update from the American Academy of Periodontology indicated that the classification of periodontal disease should include evaluation of the following: (i) gingival attachment level; (ii) chronic versus aggressive periodontitis; and (iii) localised versus generalised periodontitis, with a focus on the percentage of affected teeth. The second method is a subjective measurement that identifies periodontal disease through self‐reported measures. In the objective measurement, severe periodontitis is defined as having one or more site(s) with a probing pocket depth ≥ 6 mm or clinical attachment loss (CAL) ≥ 5 mm.…”

“…‘In general, would your current periodontal bone loss be classified as none, mild, moderate, severe, or do you not know?’), or is defined as the presence of tooth mobility (e.g. ‘Do you think your teeth are loose or wobbly?’). These measurements are used in clinical practice and public health settings.…”

“…In the field of public oral health, it is useful to evaluate periodontal health status as recognised by the community residents themselves, and to use these data to assess the community's health service‐related needs. Although there is some controversy regarding the validity and reliability of both objective and subjective measurements, subjective measurement is more cost‐effective. It is particularly useful for symptoms that involve the soft tissues, yet go unnoticed outwardly.…”

Genetic and environmental contributions to the association between mood disorder and periodontal disease: A cross‐sectional study among female twins in the UK

“…According to the validation test using the categorical periodontal classification, we suggest that this classification tends to have a wide range of periodontal status in the moderate group so that some of the subjects who answered negative for our questionnaire could have periodontal condition which is very close to mild, but classified moderate. However, our study as well as a number of previous studies has demonstrated that combinations of the two questions used in this study, namely loose teeth and professional diagnosis of gum disease, can achieve high positive predictive value for moderate to severe periodontitis (Eke et al., ; Page & Eke, ), although rather lower sensitivity rates suggest that while the self‐reported periodontitis measure used here is valid, it is likely to markedly underestimate the total number of actual cases of periodontitis in this cohort (Chatzopoulos, Tsalikis, Konstantinidis, & Kotsakis, ; Dietrich et al., ; Eke et al., ; Heaton et al., ) and compound reporting biases. However, there is little information of the accuracy of self‐reported bleeding, and thus, the phenotype of “gum bleeding” may be less robust than the presence of self‐reported periodontitis.…”