4.7 Article

Periodontitis in Ischemic Stroke Patients: Case Definition Challenges of the New Classification Scheme (2018)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11030520

关键词

stroke; comorbidities; periodontal diagnosis; periodontitis; case definition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of different case definition systems for detecting periodontitis in IS patients, and found that the new case definition system has a higher capacity to detect periodontitis.
The identification of the associative relationships between ischemic stroke (IS) and risk factors such as advanced age and periodontitis is essential to design real screening protocols and to address them using primary and secondary preventive policies. This study primarily aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the 2018 European Federation of Periodontology/American Academy of Periodontology (EFP/AAP) case definition in detecting periodontitis against the 2012 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/American Academy of Periodontology (CDC/AAP) case definition in a group of IS patients. Secondarily, we report the periodontal status of IS patients and the associative relationship with respect to some risk factors. Patients with their first IS were assessed based on demographic data, medical, oral risk factors and periodontal parameters. The two case definitions were applied to identify the periodontitis burden. The agreement between the two case definition systems, as well as the misclassification ratio, were calculated. A total of 141 patients were included. According to the 2012 CDC/AAP and the 2018 EFP/AAP case definitions, a frequency of periodontitis of 98.5% and 97.8% based on two modalities of inclusion of cases in the severity groups, sensitivity values of 98.54% or 100%, and specificity values of 25% or 14.7% were calculated. Thus, the new case definition system has a higher capacity to detect periodontitis, especially the well-established forms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据