Evaluation of Periodontal Risk in Adult Patients using Two Different Risk Assessment Models – A Pilot Study

Dhulipalla, Ravindranath; Bade, Shruthi; Bollepalli, Appaiah Chowdary; Katuri, Kishore Kumar; Devulapalli, Narasimha Swamy; Swarna, Chakrapani

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2015/11772.5556

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two risk assessment tools presented here refer to thoroughly examined risk factors that have been evaluated in numerous long-term studies (Costa et al, 2012;Eickholz et al, 2008;Jansson & Norderyd, 2008;Lang & Tonetti, 2003;Leininger, Tenenbaum, & Davideau, 2010;Lu et al, 2013;Martin, Page, Loeb, & Levi, 2010;Matuliene et al, 2010;Meyer-Baumer et al, 2012;Page, Martin, Krall, Mancl, & Garcia, 2003). In addition, there are other risk assessment tools that are not discussed here (Chandra, 2007;Dhulipalla et al, 2015;Lindskog et al, 2010aLindskog et al, , 2010bTrombelli et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to other studies with similar objectives, a sample size of 50 patients was defined as appropriate (Dhulipalla et al, 2015;Sai Sujai et al, 2015).…”

Section: Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various periodontal risk assessment methods are available for determination of patients' individual risk (Chandra, 2007;Dhulipalla et al, 2015;Lang & Tonetti, 2003;Lindskog et al, 2010aLindskog et al, , 2010bPage, Krall, Martin, Mancl, & Garcia, 2002;Trombelli et al, 2017). However, agreement of the two most commonly used methods (periodontal risk assessment: PRA; periodontal risk calculator: PRC) has hardly been described so far (Sai Sujai, Triveni, Barath, & Harikishan, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two different periodontal risk assessment methods with regard to their agreement: Periodontal risk assessment versus periodontal risk calculator

Petsos

Arendt

Eickholz

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to other studies with similar objectives, a sample size of 50 patients was defined as appropriate (Dhulipalla et al, 2015;Sai Sujai et al, 2015).…”

Section: Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two different periodontal risk assessment methods with regard to their agreement: Periodontal risk assessment versus periodontal risk calculator

Petsos

Arendt

Eickholz

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These two models of retrospective evaluation were recently compared and no significant difference was found, therefore showing that both models evaluated are effective in risk assessment. 23 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of periodontal condition and risk in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis

Kim

Moura

Caldas

et al. 2017

Einstein (São Paulo)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To establish a profile of periodontal conditions in chronic kidney disease patients on hemodialysis and their periodontal risk.Methods We included 115 patients on hemodialysis. Clinical periodontal parameters assessed were: plaque index, gingival index, probing depth and clinical attachment level. Patients were classified according to presence/absence and severity of periodontal disease and periodontal risk.Results In 107 dentate patients (93%) the plaque index was 1.53±0.78, the gingival index was 0.95±0.85, the probing depth was 2.2±0.6mm and the clinical attachment level was 3.18±1.75mm. We observed that 1 patient (0.94%) did not have periodontal disease, 55 patients (51.40%) had slight, 28 (26.17%) moderate and 23 (21.49%) severe periodontal disease. Among 107 patients, 37 (34.58%) had low risk, 35 (32.71%) moderate risk and 35 (32.71%) high risk. Patients with severe periodontal disease showed 104.5 more chance of high risk compared with low risk individuals (odds ratio: 104.5; 95%CI: 10.7-1017.2; p<0.0001).Conclusion Most of patients with chronic renal disease presented periodontal disease, indicating the presence of chronic inflammatory and infection process that may influence in systemic conditions. A prevention and interventionist approach in this population is needed, especially to emphasize the importance of oral health. The periodontal risk assessment is a useful tool to create individualized periodontal therapies and to improve general health condition.

show abstract

“…Various periodontal risk assessment methods have been employed to determine patients’ probability of suffering from disease progression ( Dhulipalla et al, 2015 , Trombelli et al, 2017 ). The two most used tools ( Sai Sujai et al, 2015 ) are the periodontal risk calculator (PRC) developed by Page et al ( Page et al, 2002 ), and the Periodontal Risk Assessment (PRA) created by Lang and Tonetti (2003) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periodontal risk assessment in a teaching hospital population in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province

Madi

Tabasum

Elakel

et al. 2021

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective With this cross-sectional study, we aimed to evaluate factors associated with moderate and high risk of periodontal disease (PD) progression in the Saudi population. Methods We reviewed 281 patients’ clinical charts from predoctoral periodontal clinics at the dental teaching hospital in the College of Dentistry (COD) at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. After obtaining ethical approval, we determined the Periodontal Risk Assessment (PRA) of the included patients based on the modified criteria developed by Lang and Tonetti (2003) . We used logistic regression on stratified data and divided the results into two categories (low-moderate and high risk) to assess the effect modifier for potential risk factors. We used SPSS version 22 for data analysis, and considered a P-value ≤ 0.05 to be statistically significant. Results Out of the 281 patients, 104 (37.0%) were male and 177 (63.0%) were female, with a mean age of 39.9 ± 14.0 years; 78.1% were Saudi nationals, 77% were married, and 44.6% were in the age group of 30 to 49. The PRA revealed 86 (30.5%) to represent high risk, 108 (38.3%) denoted moderate risk, and 88 (31.2%) signaled low risk for periodontitis. Logistic regression analysis showed that males were three times more likely to have high PRA (OR = 3.24) and to be married (OR = 2.77), as well as to be active smokers (OR = 8.87). The highest predictive factors of high PRA were 8 or more pockets ≥ 5 mm (OR = 29.0), those with active diabetes mellitus (DM; OR = 10.2), and those with 8 or more missing teeth (OR = 9.15). Conclusion Saudi males who are married and have residual periodontal pockets, are actively diabetic, and with missing teeth are at high risk of PD. Further research is needed with a larger sample size comparing the general population with and without PD.

show abstract

Evaluation of Periodontal Risk in Adult Patients using Two Different Risk Assessment Models – A Pilot Study

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Comparison of two different periodontal risk assessment methods with regard to their agreement: Periodontal risk assessment versus periodontal risk calculator

Comparison of two different periodontal risk assessment methods with regard to their agreement: Periodontal risk assessment versus periodontal risk calculator

Evaluation of periodontal condition and risk in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis

Periodontal risk assessment in a teaching hospital population in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About