Implications of less-than-perfect reliability of clinical parameters for the misclassification of periodontitis

Contesting the conventional wisdom of periodontal risk assessment

Over the years, several reviews of periodontal risk assessment tools have been published. However, major misunderstandings still prevail in repeated attempts to use these tools for prognostic risk prediction. Here we review the principles of risk prediction and discuss the value and the challenges of using prediction models in periodontology. Most periodontal risk prediction models have not been properly developed according to guidance given for the risk prediction model development. This shortcoming has led to several problems, including the creation of arbitrary risk scores. These scores are often labelled as 'high risk' without explicit boundaries or thresholds for the underlying continuous risk estimates of patient-important outcomes. Moreover, it is apparent that prediction models are often misinterpreted as causal models by clinicians and researchers although they cannot be used as such. Additional challenges like the critical assessment of transportability and applicability of these prediction models, as well as their impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes, are not considered in the literature. Nevertheless, these instruments are promoted with claims regarding their ability to deliver more individualized and precise periodontitis treatment and prevention, purportedly resulting in improved patient outcomes. However, people with or without periodontitis deserve proper information about their risk of developing patient-important outcomes such as tooth loss or pain. The primary objective of disseminating such information should not be to emphasize assumed treatment efficacy, hype individualization of care, or promote business interests. Instead, the focus should be on providing individuals with locally validated and regularly updated predictions of specific risks based on readily accessible and valid key predictors (e.g. age and smoking).

Justification for the 2017 periodontitis classification in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions: A narrative review

Once a while, disease classifications have needed revision because new knowledge has accumulated, and new technologies and better treatments have emerged. Changes made to disease classifications should be trustworthy and openly justified. The periodontitis definition and classification system was changed in 2017 by the 'World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions'. The workshop, comprising clinicians and researchers, resulted in the production of a 23-article special issue that introduced the new definitions and classifications of periodontitis. In this narrative review, we critically review how the changes made to the periodontitis definition and classification were justified in the light of the Checklist for Modifying Disease Definitions. Under each of the eight items of the checklist, we have discussed how the item was or could have been considered in the light of the checklist and its guidance. In our view, the new definition and classification of periodontitis was presented in an understandable way, even though the changes from the previous definition were not made visible. However, the issues of (1) estimated changes in prevalence or incidence, (2) triggers for the change, (3) prognostic ability, (4) repeatability or reproducibility, (5) incremental benefits, (6) incremental harms or (7) net benefits and harms related to the introduction of new classification were not considered in the way suggested in the checklist. Thereby, a balanced assessment of potential benefits and harms associated with the new periodontitis classification system was not presented, and to a large extent it remains unknown if the use of the new classification system will provide more net benefits to patients and to the community than previous systems. It is our view that patients and societies deserve transparent and balanced assessments of the potential benefits and harms associated with the periodontitis classification. Importantly, these should reflect the values and preferences also of the patients and the wider community and consider the impact on resource usage.

Clinical Oral Disorders in Adults Screening Protocol (CODA-SP) from the 2019 Vancouver IADR Consensus Symposium

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Oral Disorder in Elders (CODE) index was proposed in 1999 to assess the oral health status and treatment needs of older people who typically were edentate or had few natural teeth. Since then, more people are retaining natural teeth into old age and have oral disorders similar to younger adults. In addition, there has been further guidance on screening for disease that includes changes to the clinical indicators of several oral disorders and greater sensitivity to people's concerns about their oral health and care needs.

METHODS

Experts in dental geriatrics assembled at a satellite symposium of the International Association of Dental Research in June 2019 to revise the objectives and content of the CODE index. Before the symposium, 139 registrants were asked for comments on the CODE index, and 11 content experts summarised current evidence and assembled reference lists of relevant information on each indicator. The reference lists provided the base for a narrative review of relevant evidence supplemented by reference tracking and direct searches of selected literature for additional evidence.

RESULTS

Analysis of the evidence by consensus of the experts produced the Clinical Oral Disorders in Adults Screening Protocol (CODA-SP).

CONCLUSIONS

The CODA-SP encompasses multiple domains of physical and subjective indicators with weighted severity scores. Field tests are required now to validate its effectiveness and utility in oral healthcare services, outcomes and infrastructure.