Standards for reporting chronic periodontitis prevalence and severity in epidemiologic studies

Abstract

Periodontal diseases are common and their prevalence varies in different populations. However, prevalence estimates are influenced by the methodology used, including measurement techniques, case definitions, and periodontal examination protocols, as well as differences in oral health status. As a consequence, comparisons between populations are severely hampered and inferences regarding the global variation in prevalence can hardly be drawn. To overcome these limitations, the authors suggest standardized principles for the reporting of the prevalence and severity of periodontal diseases in future epidemiological studies. These principles include the comprehensive reporting of the study design, the recording protocol, and specific subject-related and oral data. Further, a range of periodontal data should be reported in the total population and within specific age groups. Periodontal data include the prevalence and extent of clinical attachment loss (CAL) and probing depth (PD) on site and tooth level according to specific thresholds, mean CAL/PD, the CDC/AAP case definition, and bleeding on probing. Consistent implementation of these standards in future studies will ensure improved reporting quality, permit meaningful comparisons of the prevalence of periodontal diseases across populations, and provide better insights into the determinants of such variation.

Interleukin-33 and RANK-L Interplay in the Alveolar Bone Loss Associated to Periodontitis

“…Detailed medical and periodontal histories of each patient were recorded (Table 1). According to the American Association of Periodontology, criteria for CP, were i) probing pocket depth > 5 mm, ii) clinical attachment level > 3 mm and iii) bleeding on probing periodontal pockets [33]. …”

Periodontal status among elderly inhabitants of northern Manhattan: The WHICAP ancillary study of oral health

“…To facilitate a comparison with existing and future literature, our data presentation largely conforms with the guidelines for reporting periodontitis prevalence and severity in epidemiologic studies proposed by the Joint EU/USA Periodontal Epidemiology Working Group (Holtfreter et al, 2015). Our findings demonstrate a higher extent and severity of periodontitis than that reported in the literature for cohorts of corresponding age although the observed prevalence of edentulism was lower.…”

Standardized screening for periodontitis as an integral part of multidisciplinary management of adults with type 2 diabetes: an observational cross-sectional study of cohorts in the USA and UK

“…At the time of our study, there was no consensus on international standards for reporting periodontitis prevalence, extent, and severity 22. Therefore, periodontal assessment in dentate patients included the extent of full-mouth, pocket-probing depth (PD) measurements and bleeding on probing (BOP).…”

“…Diagnostic thresholds for periodontitis have been debated extensively in the periodontal literature and there is no global consensus 22–24. Despite variations in diagnostic criteria,22 25 26 one in nine adults is estimated to have advanced (severe) periodontitis26 and people with type 2 diabetes are at an up to threefold increased risk, particularly if glycemic control is poor 7.…”