Periodontitis Prevalence in a West African Sub-Population Using Two Definitions: A Cross-Sectional Study in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study evaluated prevalence, severity and risk indicators of periodontitis among urban West African adults using CDC/AAP 2012 and EFP/AAP 2018 criteria.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
A cross-sectional study among adults attending four public dental centers in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso was conducted. Sociodemographic and risk factors were collected by interview, and full-mouth periodontal exams were performed at six sites per tooth. Both CDC/AAP 2012 and EFP/AAP 2018 definitions were applied. The performance of the EFP/AAP criteria was compared with CDC/AAP as the reference.
RESULTS
A total of 749 participants (mean age: 34.32 ± 11.51 years; 52.34% female) were included. The prevalence of periodontitis was 71.83% using EFP/AAP criteria (stage I: 16.02%; stage II: 24.57%; stage III/IV: 31.25%) and 56.21% with CDC/AAP (mild: 6.28%; moderate: 38.45%; severe: 11.48%). Compared with CDC/AAP, EFP/AAP showed high sensitivity (99.29%) but low specificity (28.96%), with a positive predictive value of 64.21% and negative predictive value of 96.94%. Increasing age (CDC/AAP: OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, p = 0.001 | EFP/AAP: OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.00-1.07, p = 0.040) and smoking (CDC/AAP: OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.12-6.89, p = 0.028 | EFP/AAP: OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.03-4.86, p = 0.040) were consistently associated with higher odds of periodontitis.
CONCLUSION
Periodontitis was highly prevalent in this urban West African population, with advanced disease affecting up to one-third of adults. The EFP/AAP classification identified more cases but showed lower specificity, potentially overestimating disease burden in settings with high prevalence but predominantly moderate disease.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.