1
|
Teles R, Benecha HK, Preisser JS, Moss K, Starr JR, Corby P, Genco R, Garcia N, Giannobile WV, Jared H, Torresyap G, Salazar E, Moya J, Howard C, Schifferle R, Falkner KL, Gillespie J, Dixon D, Cugini M. Modelling changes in clinical attachment loss to classify periodontal disease progression. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43:426-34. [PMID: 26935472 PMCID: PMC5021116 DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/27/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AIM The goal of this study was to identify progressing periodontal sites by applying linear mixed models (LMM) to longitudinal measurements of clinical attachment loss (CAL). METHODS Ninety-three periodontally healthy and 236 periodontitis subjects had their CAL measured bi-monthly for 12 months. The proportions of sites demonstrating increases in CAL from baseline above specified thresholds were calculated for each visit. The proportions of sites reversing from the progressing state were also computed. LMM were fitted for each tooth site and the predicted CAL levels used to categorize sites regarding progression or regression. The threshold for progression was established based on the model-estimated error in predictions. RESULTS Over 12 months, 21.2%, 2.8% and 0.3% of sites progressed, according to thresholds of 1, 2 and 3 mm of CAL increase. However, on average, 42.0%, 64.4% and 77.7% of progressing sites for the different thresholds reversed in subsequent visits. Conversely, 97.1%, 76.9% and 23.1% of sites classified as progressing using LMM had observed CAL increases above 1, 2 and 3 mm after 12 months, whereas mean rates of reversal were 10.6%, 30.2% and 53.0% respectively. CONCLUSION LMM accounted for several sources of error in longitudinal CAL measurement, providing an improved method for classifying progressing sites.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ricardo Teles
- Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Habtamu K Benecha
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - John S Preisser
- Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Kevin Moss
- Department of Dental Ecology, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Jacqueline R Starr
- Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.,Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Patricia Corby
- New York University College of Dentistry, Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert Genco
- Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Nathalia Garcia
- Section of Periodontics, Department of Applied Dental Medicine, Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, Alton, IL, USA
| | - William V Giannobile
- Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine & Michigan Center for Oral Health Research, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Heather Jared
- Rho Inc., Contract Research Organization, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Gay Torresyap
- Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Elida Salazar
- Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Julie Moya
- New York University College of Dentistry, Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York, NY, USA
| | - Cynthia Howard
- New York University College of Dentistry, Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert Schifferle
- Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Karen L Falkner
- Department of Oral Biology, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jane Gillespie
- Section of Periodontics, Department of Applied Dental Medicine, Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, Alton, IL, USA
| | - Debra Dixon
- Section of Periodontics, Department of Applied Dental Medicine, Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, Alton, IL, USA
| | - MaryAnn Cugini
- Department of Applied Oral Sciences, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
AIMS To review the literature related to the analytical epidemiology of periodontitis generated over the past decade. This review does not deal with descriptive epidemiologic studies of the prevalence, extent and severity of periodontitis with respect to global geography, but focuses exclusively on analytical epidemiology issues, including the challenges posed by the use of different case definitions across studies, current theories and models of disease progression, and risk factors associated with the onset and progression of periodontitis. METHODS Relevant publications in the English language were identified after Medline and PubMed database searches. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS There is a conspicuous lack of uniformity in the definition of periodontitis used in epidemiologic studies, and findings from different research groups are not readily interpretable. There is a lack of studies that specifically address the distinction between factors responsible for the onset of periodontitis versus those affecting its progression. Colonization by specific bacteria at high levels, smoking, and poorly controlled diabetes have been established as risk factors for periodontitis, while a number of putative factors, including specific gene polymorphisms, have been identified in association studies. There is a clear need for longitudinal prospective studies that address hypotheses emerging from the cross-sectional data and include established risk factors as covariates along with new exposures of interest. Intervention studies, fulfilling the "targeting" step of the risk assessment process, are particularly warranted. Obvious candidates in this context are studies of the efficacy of elimination of specific bacterial species and of smoking cessation interventions as an alternative to the traditional broad anti-plaque approach in the prevention and control of periodontitis. Ideally, such studies should have a randomized-controlled trial design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luisa N Borrell
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Breen HJ, Rogers PA, Johnson NW. Improvements in methods of periodontal probing: comparison of relative attachment level data selected by outlier reduction protocols from Florida disc probe measurements. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29:679-87. [PMID: 12390563 DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290803.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare relative attachment level data (RAL) selected by the Option-4 algorithm (O-4), Modified Option-4 algorithm (MO-4), Option-3 method (O-3) and Double Pass method (DP) from a common dataset and to determine the most efficient method in eliminating outliers. MATERIAL AND METHODS A single clinician recorded full mouth RAL with the Florida Disc Probe on four occasions over 6 months in 16 subjects (mean age 48.1 years) with untreated moderate Chronic Adult Periodontitis (mean Probeable Crevice Depth 2.9 mm). RESULTS 2312 sites were available for analysis. Within-visit correlation coefficients for the two selected RAL measurements were 0.98 (P < 0.001) for O-4, MO-4 and O-3 and >or= 0.92 (P < 0.001) for DP. The maximum mean differences of within-visit RAL were - 0.05 mm for O-4, - 0.03 mm for MO-4, - 0.03 mm for O-3 and - 0.02 mm for DP. The standard deviations of these differences were <or= 0.44 mm for O-4, <or= 0.47 mm for MO-4, <or= 0.45 for O-3 and <or= 0.96 mm for DP. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMAV) showed a significant difference in RAL between visits for all methods (P < 0.003). RMAV, investigating predetermined between-method comparisons, showed a significant difference in RAL between visits (P = 0.0002) and a significant interaction between the order of the selected RAL and method (P = 0.0011). Within-visit RAL agreement to within 1.0 mm was achieved at >or= 99.9% sites for O-4, >or= 99.9% sites for MO-4, >or= 99.3% sites for O-3 and >or= 85.6% sites for DP. Remeasurement (in addition to two passes) was required over the study period at 16.6% sites for O-4, 13.2% sites for MO-4 and 13.0% sites for O-3: DP, by definition, required no additional measurements. The mean site-specific variances at all visits were <or= 0.1 mm(2) for O-4, MO-4 and O-3 and <or= 0.44 mm(2) for DP. CONCLUSIONS The Option-4 algorithm was found to be the most effective outlier reduction protocol currently available, producing the most reproducible data.
Collapse
|
4
|
Breen HJ, Johnson NW, Rogers PA. Site-specific attachment level change detected by physical probing in untreated chronic adult periodontitis: review of studies 1982-1997. J Periodontol 1999; 70:312-28. [PMID: 10225549 DOI: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.3.312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Site-specific attachment level change, detected from sequential physical probing measurements, is currently the most common method of determining the progression/regression or stability of disease status in subjects with chronic adult periodontitis. The sensitivity and accuracy of detection is dependent on the type of probe used, the recording method, the measurement error, and the method of data analysis. In recent years, there has been world-wide interest in developing instruments and methods to minimize measurement error. Published data report disturbingly wide variation in the prevalences and rates of site-specific attachment level change which are difficult to reconcile with biological likelihood. The present paper aims to summarize the salient points from the key studies and to compare the results. METHODS The literature between 1982 and 1997 was reviewed for studies in which site-specific attachment level change was detected by physical probing methods in patients with chronic adult periodontitis. RESULTS The review documents 23 studies by probe generation, compares methods and results and summarizes the results according to the thresholds and probe type used. The 23 studies used an array of probe types from the 3 probe generations. CONCLUSIONS From this review, we conclude that: 1) There are surprisingly few papers which have addressed the question of site-specific attachment level change in untreated chronic adult periodontitis. 2) There are considerable differences in the probes used, in the thresholds achieved, in the number of measurements taken, in the number of subjects and sites studied, and in the duration of the studies. Valid comparisons between studies are, therefore, rarely possible. 3) Only 8 out of 23 papers from 1982 to 1997 have adequate data. Most papers report only losing sites and therefore ignore many of the measurements recorded. Only one paper describes losing sites, gaining sites, and sites showing exacerbation/remission patterns of change. 4) The range of changes described show such variation that it has to be concluded that we cannot reliably detect site-specific attachment level change by physical probing and thus, at the end of the 20th century, we have no clear idea of the natural history of this disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H J Breen
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine and Pathology, Guy's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|