School of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Denmark.
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Jan;39(1):10-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01812.x. Epub 2011 Nov 10.
The purpose of the present study was to assess the extent to which the three periodontitis case definition systems proposed by van der Velden, Tonetti & Claffey and Page & Eke identify the same cases in a population of never-treated adults with limited tradition for oral hygiene procedures.
Based on data on clinical attachment level (CAL), probing pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) of four sites in all teeth present among 1,130 adult Kenyans we classified the population according to the three case definition systems, and according to the occurrence of the concomitant presence of CAL and BOP at the site level.
The case definitions by Tonetti & Claffey and by Page & Eke yielded similar results, which were also quite similar to the results of simply identifying a case of periodontitis as a person having at least one site showing both CAL ≥ 4 mm and BOP.
The results indicate that it should be feasible for the periodontal community to reach an agreement over the distinction between a case and a non-case. The classification system proposed by van der Velden is better suited for providing clinicians with a clear image of the case.
本研究旨在评估范德维登(van der Velden)、托内蒂(Tonetti)和克拉菲(Claffey)以及佩奇(Page)和埃克(Eke)提出的三种牙周炎病例定义系统在多大程度上可以识别未经治疗的成年人中具有有限口腔卫生习惯的人群中的相同病例。
基于肯尼亚 1130 名成年人所有牙齿的四个部位的临床附着水平(CAL)、探诊袋深度(PD)和探诊出血(BOP)的数据,我们根据三种病例定义系统对人群进行分类,并根据在部位水平同时存在 CAL 和 BOP 的情况对人群进行分类。
托内蒂和克拉菲的病例定义和佩奇和埃克的病例定义产生了相似的结果,这些结果也与简单地将至少有一个部位出现 CAL≥4mm 和 BOP 的个体定义为牙周炎病例的结果非常相似。
结果表明,牙周病学界应该能够就病例和非病例之间的区别达成一致意见。范德维登提出的分类系统更适合为临床医生提供病例的清晰图像。