4.3 Article

Periodontitis Prevalence, Severity, and Risk Factors: A Comparison of the AAP/CDC Case Definition and the EFP/AAP Classification

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073459

Keywords

periodontitis; prevalence; risk factors; smoking; age; systemic disease; diabetes; classification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the utility of 2018 EFP/AAP and AAP/CDC classifications and case definitions in assessing periodontitis prevalence and severity, finding age to be the most significant risk factor.
Background: This cross-sectional study evaluated the utility of the 2018 European Federation of Periodontology/American Academy of Periodontology (EFP/AAP) classifications of epidemiological studies in terms of periodontitis severity, prevalence and associated risk factors and the 2012 American Academy of Periodontology/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (AAP/CDC) case definitions. Methods: We included 488 participants aged 35-74 years. Measurements were recorded at six sites per tooth by two qualified examiners. The evaluated parameters included pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Periodontitis prevalence and severity were reported using the 2018 EFP/AAP classification and the AAP/CDC case definitions. The data were stratified by recognized risk factors (age, diabetes and smoking status). Results: The 2018 EFP/AAP classification indicated that all patients suffered from periodontitis. When CAL served as the main criterion, the frequency of patients with severe (Stages III-IV) periodontitis was 54%. When the AAP/CDC case definitions were applied, the prevalence of periodontitis was 61.9% and that of severe periodontitis 16.8%. Age was the most significant risk factor, regardless of the chosen case definition. Conclusion: It is essential to employ a globalized standard case definition when monitoring periodontitis and associated risk factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available