4.6 Article

Prognostic factors in the treatment of generalized aggressive periodontitis: I. Clinical features and initial outcome

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 663-670

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00966.x

Keywords

aggressive periodontitis; prognosis; smoking; treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The aims of this study were to investigate prognostic factors for initial response to non-surgical periodontal treatment for generalized aggressive periodontitis. Methods: Seventy-nine patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis were included in this prospective follow-up intervention study. Patients' clinical and demographic parameters were collected at baseline and 10 weeks following a standard course of treatment (four visits of non-surgical root surface debridement together with OHI as required). The relationship between clinical variables and treatment outcome were analysed at site-specific level by chi(2) analysis and for patient-specific variables by logistic regression. Results: In general, there was a good response to the treatment provided. In deep sites the mean pocket depth reduction was 2.11 +/- 2.01 mm. Site-specific analysis showed that the presence of plaque had a small but significant predictive effect on outcome (odds ratio 1.4). Sites on teeth with grade II/III mobility showed a significantly reduced response to treatment. Twenty-five patients were classified as non-responders. Current smoking was strongly associated with non-responding patients (odds ratio 3.8) in a logistic regression model; plaque, baseline bleeding and initial pocket depth were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Conclusions: Overall, the results emphasize the importance of smoking as a negative prognostic factor, and suggest that treatment outcomes may be determined by a wide range of different determinants requiring further study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available