Journal of clinical periodontology · 2013
Assessing periodontitis in populations: a systematic review of the validity of partial-mouth examination protocols.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Tran Duong T, Gay Isabel, Du Xianglin L, Fu Yunxin, Bebermeyer Richard D, Neumann Ana S, Streckfus Charles, Chan Wenyaw, Walji Muhammad F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate bias associated with partial-mouth periodontal examination (PMPE) protocols regarding estimates of prevalence, severity and extent of clinical attachment loss (CAL), pocket depth (PD) and gingival recession (REC).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was made for articles published in English, from 1946 to 2012, which compared PMPE versus full-mouth periodontal examination protocols for CAL or PD ≥ 4 mm or REC ≥3 mm thresholds. PMPE protocols were evaluated for sensitivity of estimates of periodontitis prevalence, relative biases for severity and extent estimates.
RESULTS: A review of the literature identified 12 studies which reported 32 PMPE protocols. Three PMPE protocols which had sensitivities ≥85% and relative biases ≤0.05 in absolute values for severity and extent estimates were as follows: (1) half-mouth six-sites, (2) diagonal quadrants six-sites and (3) full-mouth mesiobuccal-midbuccal-distobuccal (MB-B-DB). Two other PMPE protocols (full-mouth and half-mouth mesiobuccal-midbuccal-distolingual) performed well for prevalence and severity of periodontitis; however, their performance in estimates of extent was unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the 32 PMPE protocols listed, the half-mouth six-sites and full-mouth MB-B-DB protocols had the highest sensitivities for prevalence estimates and lowest relative biases for severity and extent estimates.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was made for articles published in English, from 1946 to 2012, which compared PMPE versus full-mouth periodontal examination protocols for CAL or PD ≥ 4 mm or REC ≥3 mm thresholds. PMPE protocols were evaluated for sensitivity of estimates of periodontitis prevalence, relative biases for severity and extent estimates.
RESULTS: A review of the literature identified 12 studies which reported 32 PMPE protocols. Three PMPE protocols which had sensitivities ≥85% and relative biases ≤0.05 in absolute values for severity and extent estimates were as follows: (1) half-mouth six-sites, (2) diagonal quadrants six-sites and (3) full-mouth mesiobuccal-midbuccal-distobuccal (MB-B-DB). Two other PMPE protocols (full-mouth and half-mouth mesiobuccal-midbuccal-distolingual) performed well for prevalence and severity of periodontitis; however, their performance in estimates of extent was unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the 32 PMPE protocols listed, the half-mouth six-sites and full-mouth MB-B-DB protocols had the highest sensitivities for prevalence estimates and lowest relative biases for severity and extent estimates.