Effect of partial recording protocols on severity estimates of periodontal disease

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 35; no. 8; pp. 659 - 667
• Main Authors: Kingman, Albert, Susin, Cristiano, Albandar, Jasim M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.08.2008; Blackwell
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Algorithms; Bias; Bicuspid - pathology; Biological and medical sciences; Brazil; Cohort Studies; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; Female; Gingival Recession - classification; Humans; Incisor - pathology; Male; mean periodontal probing pockets and attachment level; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Molar - pathology; Non tumoral diseases; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; partial recording; Periodontal Attachment Loss - classification; Periodontal Diseases - classification; periodontal diseases/diagnosis; Periodontal Index; Periodontal Pocket - classification; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; mean periodontal probing pockets and attachment level; Periodontal disease; Partial; Stomatology; Bias; partial recording; Dentistry; Diagnosis; Recording; periodontal diseases/diagnosis; Periodontal pocket
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01243.x

Objectives: The study aim was to assess bias magnitudes of periodontal disease severity estimates for specific partial recording protocols (PRPs) in epidemiological studies. Material and Methods: Estimates of mean clinical attachment loss (MCAL) and mean probing pocket depth (MPPD) were derived for 20 different PRPs using full‐mouth periodontal data from 1437 dentate Brazilian subjects 14–103 years old having at least four teeth. Biases, relative biases and intra‐class correlations for all PRPs were evaluated. Graphical methods were used to assess how well the PRP‐based estimates agreed with full‐mouth scores across levels of disease. Results: Slightly higher levels of disease were evidenced on lingual than on buccal sites. Seven multi‐site PRPs and the Ramfjörd PRP produced small biases in MPPD (−0.17 to 0.04 mm) and MCAL with relative biases under 8% and 4% in absolute value for MPPD and MCAL, respectively. Biases for full‐ and random half‐mouth‐based PRPs were similar. The three‐site random half‐mouth MB–B–DL and the Ramfjörd PRPs produced the smallest biases, with relative biases <3% in absolute value for MPPD and MCAL. Conclusions: Bias for MPPD or MCAL estimates varies by site type, number of sites per tooth and number of quadrants included in the PRP.