International dental journal · 2016
Clinical attachment loss: estimation by direct and indirect methods.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Barbosa Viviane Leal, Angst Patricia D Melchiors, Finger Stadler Amanda, Oppermann Rui V, Gomes Sabrina Carvalho
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This observational study aimed to compare the estimation of clinical attachment loss (CAL) as measured by direct (CALD ) and indirect (CALI ) methods.
METHODS: Periodontitis patients (n = 75; mean age: 50.9 ± 8.02 years; 72.2% women; 50.6% smokers) received a periodontal examination (six sites/tooth) to determine the presence of visible plaque and calculus, the gingival bleeding index (GBI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), CALD and gingival recession (GR). CALI values resulted from the sum of PPD and GR values. Statistical analysis considered only data from sites with visible GR (e.g. the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction; n = 4,757 sites) and determined the mean difference between CALI and CALD measurements. Based on the mean difference, univariate and multivariate analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Mean CALD and CALI values were 3.96 ± 2.07 mm and 4.47 ± 2.03 mm, respectively. The indirect method overestimated CAL compared with the direct method (mean difference: 0.51 ± 1.23 mm; P < 0.001). On uni- and multivariate analyses, absence of GBI and BOP, PPD and proximal site location had significant influences on the overestimation of CAL by the indirect method (all P ≤ 0.01). The indirect method increased the CAL value by 0.38 mm for each additional 1 mm in PPD.
CONCLUSIONS: To decrease the number of probing errors in daily practice it is suggested that direct examination is more appropriate than the indirect method for estimating CAL.
METHODS: Periodontitis patients (n = 75; mean age: 50.9 ± 8.02 years; 72.2% women; 50.6% smokers) received a periodontal examination (six sites/tooth) to determine the presence of visible plaque and calculus, the gingival bleeding index (GBI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), CALD and gingival recession (GR). CALI values resulted from the sum of PPD and GR values. Statistical analysis considered only data from sites with visible GR (e.g. the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction; n = 4,757 sites) and determined the mean difference between CALI and CALD measurements. Based on the mean difference, univariate and multivariate analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: Mean CALD and CALI values were 3.96 ± 2.07 mm and 4.47 ± 2.03 mm, respectively. The indirect method overestimated CAL compared with the direct method (mean difference: 0.51 ± 1.23 mm; P < 0.001). On uni- and multivariate analyses, absence of GBI and BOP, PPD and proximal site location had significant influences on the overestimation of CAL by the indirect method (all P ≤ 0.01). The indirect method increased the CAL value by 0.38 mm for each additional 1 mm in PPD.
CONCLUSIONS: To decrease the number of probing errors in daily practice it is suggested that direct examination is more appropriate than the indirect method for estimating CAL.