Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical parameters to select high prevalence populations for periodontal disease. The site comparative severity methodology

4Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Epidemiological studies have shown strong evidence that periodontal disease does not affect all subjects in the same manner. There are subjects and sites with higher risk for disease progression. This study tested parameters to select "a priori" sites and subjects potentially at risk. The data from periodontal clinical examinations of 2273 subjects was used. The clinical loss of attachment was measured in 6 sites per tooth. Using computer software, the patients were distributed into 14 age groups, with intervals of 5 years, from 11 years to greater than 75 years of age. The measure of each site was compared with the average and the median values of the subject age group, with the results indicating site comparative severity (SCS). Three global parameters were calculated: parameter 1 (P1) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss ≥ 4 mm; parameter 2 (P2) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss ≥ 7 mm; parameter 3 (P3) - percentage of sites with clinical attachment loss surpassing the median value for the age group by 100% or more. There were 1466 (65%) females and 807 (35%) males. Most subjects had P1, P2 and P3 values less than 30%. Parameter 3 allowed a division of the sample similar to that of Parameters 1 and 2, with the advantage of analyzing the subject in relation to his/her age group. It was suggested that the methodology of SCS is useful for selecting a population with a high disease prevalence, and that cut-off lines between 10% and 20% would be appropriate for using Parameter 3.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

De Souza, S. L. S., & Taba, M. (2004). Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical parameters to select high prevalence populations for periodontal disease. The site comparative severity methodology. Brazilian Dental Journal, 15(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402004000100009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free