Risk factor assessment tools for the prevention of periodontitis progression a systematic review

Appropriate Recall Interval for Periodontal Maintenance: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the evidence to support a specific time interval between periodontal maintenance (PM) visits.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed using specific search terms, until April, 2014, resulting in 1095 abstracts and/or titles with possible relevance. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) guidelines were used to evaluate the strength of studies and synthesize findings. If mean recall interval was not reported for study groups, authors were contacted to attempt to retrieve this information.

RESULTS

Eight cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. No randomized control trials were found. All included studies assessed the effect of PM recall intervals in terms of compliance with a recommended regimen (3-6 months) as a primary outcome. Shorter PM intervals (3-6 months) favored more teeth retention but also statistically insignificant differences between RC and IC/EC, or converse findings are also found. In the 2 studies reporting mean recall interval in groups, significant tooth loss differences were noted as the interval neared the 12 month limit.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for a specific recall interval (e.g. every 3 months) for all patients following periodontal therapy is weak. Further studies, such as RCTs or large electronic database evaluations would be appropriate. The merits of risk-based recommendations over fixed recall interval regimens should be explored.

Periodontal risk calculator versus periodontal risk assessment

Introduction:

The purpose of study was twofold: To determine the extent of inter valuator and inter group variation in risk scores assigned to study subjects by PRC and PRA. To explore the relationship between risk scores assigned by PRC and using the PRA.

Materials and Methods:

57 patients (33 male patients and 24 Female patients between 20 and 65 years age group) were assessed with PRC and PRA tools during their first visit.

Results and Conclusion:

We entered the resulting information in to the PRC and PRA to obtained a riskscore for each subject at first visit. The chi-square test significance between PRC and PRA is < 0.05 indicatesthe accuracy of the both tools.