Juvenile periodontitis: an epidemiological study in the west Midlands of the United Kingdom

Abstract

The prevalence of juvenile periodontitis was studied in a sample of 7266 school children in the cities of Coventry and Birmingham. The subjects were aged 15 to 19 years, and represented the range of different ethnic groups seen in the population of the West Midlands. A two-stage diagnostic procedure was used, whereby subjects were screened initially by assessment of probing depths around the incisors and first molars. Positive subjects were then diagnosed definitively by full clinical and radiographic examination. In both Coventry and Birmingham, there was an overall prevalence of juvenile periodontitis of 0.1%, with 95% confidence, which gives a range between 0.03 and 0.17. There was a highly significant difference in prevalence between ethnic groups, with overall prevalence figures of 0.02% for the Caucasian group, 0.8% for the Afro-Caribbean group and 0.2% for the Asian group. There was no difference in prevalence between male and female.

Radiographic Study of Ethnic Variation in Alveolar Bone Height Among New Zealand Dental Students

“…In our study, gender did not influence the radiographic CEJ‐AC distance significantly. This is in accordance with other studies that found no association between gender and the prevalence of periodontal disease 4,19‐21 …”

Association analysis of the IL-1 gene cluster polymorphisms with aggressive and chronic periodontitis in the Algerian population

“…As various studies we found that periodontitis disease is usually more common in females than males (26)(27)(28). However, several other studies have noted different gender distributions (29,30). The fact that there is a majority of women may be due in part to hormonal exchange during the menstrual cycle and pregnancy which may consequently worsen the clinical course of this disease (26).…”

Global prevalence of aggressive periodontitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…From 2,924 retrieved studies, 51 remained for assessment. At extraction data stage, we excluded 18 more studies because of absence or too restrictive diagnostic criteria (Aass, Albander, Assenden, Tollefsen, & Gjermo, ; Belhaissi, Cherkaoui, Laporte, & Miquel, ; Cappelli, Ebersole, & Kornman, ; Gjermo, Bellini, Santos, Martins, & Ferracyoli, ; Kumar, Altamash, & Qamruddin, ; Van der Velden et al, ; Wagaiyu & Wagaiyu, ; Yoshida, Fujiwara, Ooshima, & Sobue, ) or due to a duplicate study (Saxby, ) or a study reporting data from previous studies (Oliver, Brown, & Löe, ). We also excluded three studies having an inadequate study design (Fatema & Desai, ; Nassar, Afifi, & Deprez, ; Rhee, Sekhon, & Boehm, ) and one more study with no reported global prevalence (Albandar, Brown, & Löe, ).…”