Content deleted Content added
categorization/tagging using AWB |
Katharineamy (talk | contribs) Adding links |
||
Line 1:
{{multiple issues|wikify
[[American Academy of Periodontology]]
Periodontology Literature Review:
Line 7:
Faculty of Dentistry
[[University of Toronto]]
== Epidemiology of Periodontitis ==
Line 13:
'''Prevalence of Periodontal Diseases in Adults'''
Many studies look at the prevalence of “advanced
There are a number of methodological concerns with prevalence studies, particularly 1) the ability of partial recording to reflect full-mouth conditions and 2) the use of the CPITN recording system.
The performance of a partial recording system is affected by the actual [[prevalence]] of periodontal disease in the population in question. The less frequent the disease, the more difficult it becomes for a partial recording system to detect it and thus may lead to greater underestimation of the disease prevalence. A full-mouth examination remains the best method of accurately assessing the prevalence and severity of [[periodontal disease]] in a population.
The use of the CPITN system for [[Epidemiology|epidemiological]] purposes has flaws, which are grounded in a number of historical truths. At the time the system was designed, the initiation of periodontal disease was thought to develop from a continuum from an inflammation-free state to [[gingivitis]], to [[Calculus (dental)|calculus deposition]] and pocket formation and then to progressive disease. Treatment concepts were based on the concept of pocket depths being the most critical criterion for surgical versus non-surgical treatments. This index was also designed to screen large populations to determine treatment needs and formulate preventive strategies, not to describe the prevalence and severity of periodontal diseases.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10052767 Albandar (1999)] reported on data from the Third [[National Health and Nutrition
Hugoson 1998 examined three random samples of 600, 597 and 584 subjects in 1973, 1983 and 1993 respectively. These subjects were aged 20–70 years. The severity of disease was divided into five groups, with group 5 having the most severe disease. There was an apparent increase from 1% to 2% to 3% over the three study periods, which may have been due to an increase of [[dentate]] subjects in the older age groups.
Susin 2004 examined a representative sample of 853 dentate individuals in [[Brazil]] who were selected by a multistage probability sampling method. They had a full-mouth clinical examination of six sites per tooth and answered a structured written questionnaire. Seventy-nine percent (79%) and 52% of the subjects and 36% and 16% of the teeth per subject had CAL >5 and >7mm, respectively.
Oliver 1998
Line 31:
Bourgeois 2007 found that the prevalence of deep pockets (> 5mm) is low (10.21%) in a cross-sectional study.
Baelum 1996 recalculated their previous data from
'''Incidence of Periodontitis'''
Line 37:
Like measurements of prevalence of periodontitis, the measurement of incidence will vary depending upon the case definition of the disease. Often “incidence” refers to new sites that meet the definition of periodontitis, even if they occur within a person that already has other diseased sites.
Beck 1997 found that past disease predicted subsequent CAL, although not usually at the same site. Also, persons with greater [[attachment loss]] at baseline were more likely to lose teeth over the next 5 years.
Beck 1997 – looked at [[incidence density]] such that the [[numerator]] was attachment loss greater or equal to 3mm while the [[denominator]] was the time at risk for each site. The incident density for all subjects was 0.0017 per site per month. In other words, if 1000 sites were followed for one month, 1.7 sites would lose 3mm or greater attachment. In one year, 20.6 sites would be expected to show this degree of loss.
- blacks has twice the incidence density of whites; males > females.
Gilbert 2005 describes a prospective study of persons in [[Florida]] > 45 years old. In-person interviews and examinations were conducted at baseline and 48 months. The study size was 560 persons and at the 48-month examination, 22% of persons and 1.8% of teeth had attachment loss incidence.
'''Early Onset Periodontitis'''
Albandar 2002 examined 690 school attendees aged 12–25 years. They found that 2.3% had generalized EOP and 4.2% had localized EOP. This total of 6.5% contrasted with 1.8% for [[Nigeria]], 3.1-3.7% for Brazil, 6.8% in [[India]] and 8% in [[Sudan]]. The prevalence in [[Caucasian]] populations is in the 0.1% to 0.2% range and may indicate that subjects originating from the sub-Saharan countries of Africa may be at higher risk of developing EOP.
Tinoco 1997 examined 7843 children between the ages of 12 to 19 in Brazil with strict clinical and radiographic criteria. A 0.3% prevalence of [[localized juvenile periodontitis]] was found, with different subpopulations exhibiting a range between 0.1% to 1.1%. This study found that LJP was highly associated with [[Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans]].
Lopez 2001 examined 9162 high school children for clinical attachment loss in 6 sites of first and second
Levin 2006 studied 642 young
Eres 2009 examined 3056 students between the ages of 13 to 19 years at [[public
'''Tooth Loss'''
Baelum 1997 reported on the incidence of tooth loss over 10 years among adult and elderly Chinese and looked at some [[predictive
'''References'''
|