DOI 10.3109/00016357.2010.538718
Root caries and risk profiles using the Cariogram in different periodontal disease severity groups.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
To study root caries and risk profiles using the Cariogram in relation to periodontal disease severity and to analyse indicators associated with high caries risk.
MATERIAL AND
METHODS
A cross-sectional examination was carried out on 112 patients with periodontal disease from two government clinics in Saudi Arabia. The investigation comprised a questionnaire, bitewing radiographs, measurement of salivary secretion rate, buffering capacity and cariogenic microorganisms, and registration of periodontal status, plaque amount and coronal and root caries/fillings (DFT and RDFT). The data were then entered into the Cariogram pedagogic model to illustrate the caries risk profiles.
RESULTS
Patients were grouped according to periodontal disease severity into one of three groups: (1) gingivitis (n = 44); (2) mild-to-moderate periodontitis (n = 33); and (3) severe periodontitis (n = 35). The prevalence of RDFT in the total sample was 17%. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in number of root lesions or mean 'Actual Chance to Avoid New Cavities' (Chance-AC) according to the Cariogram. Of the total sample, 22% displayed high caries risk (Chance-AC ≤ 40%). The most significant risk indicators in high caries risk patients were infrequent use of fluoride and unfavourable salivary and microbial parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Root surface lesions and high caries risk were present in about one-fifth of the patients referred for periodontal treatment. A combination of risk indicators rather than a single one contributed to the increased risk. Caries and risk profiles were not significantly correlated with periodontal disease severity.
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.