Bias in estimating the cross-sectional smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes associations with moderate-severe periodontitis in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study: comparison of full versus partial-mouth estimates.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether partial-mouth protocols (PRPs) result in biased estimates of the associations between smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes with periodontitis.

METHODS: Using a sample (n = 6129) of the 1996-1998 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, we used measures of probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level to identify moderate-severe periodontitis. Adjusting for confounders, unconditional binary logistic regression estimated prevalence odds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence limits. Specifically, we compared POR for smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes with periodontitis derived from full-mouth to those derived from 4-PRPs (Ramfjörd, National Health and Nutrition Examination survey-III, modified-NHANES-IV and 42-site-Random-site selection-method). Finally, we conducted a simple sensitivity analysis of periodontitis misclassification by changing the case definition threshold for each PRP.

RESULTS: In comparison to full-mouth PORs, PRP PORs were biased in terms of magnitude and direction. Holding the full-mouth case definition at moderate-severe periodontitis and setting it at mild-moderate-severe for the PRPs did not consistently produce POR estimates that were either biased towards or away from the null in comparison to full-mouth estimates.

CONCLUSIONS: Partial-mouth protocols result in misclassification of periodontitis and may bias epidemiologic measures of association. The magnitude and direction of this bias depends on choice of PRP and case definition threshold used.