Corraini Priscila, Lopez Rodrigo, Vaeth Michael
Department of Dentistry, Section of Periodontology, Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;43(2):183-92. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12142. Epub 2015 Jan 27.
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the misclassification of periodontitis using two operational protocols currently employed in research, as a result of intra-examiner less-than-perfect reliability of their formative clinical parameters.
Full-mouth duplicate recordings (six sites per tooth) of probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were obtained by a single examiner, 1 week apart, from 148 adults with self-perceived need for periodontal treatment. They were used to classify periodontitis subjects according to the protocols proposed by the 5th European Workshop in Periodontology (EWP5) and the collaboration between the US Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology (CDC-AAP).
Hundred percent and 91.2% of the subjects were classified as periodontitis cases according to the EWP5 and CDC-AAP protocols, respectively. Test-retest agreement was observed in 95% and 85% of the classified subjects according to the EWP5 and CDC-AAP protocols, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Alignment of protocols, in terms of number of classification categories, resulted in a similar test-retest agreement of 95% using the EWP5 protocol for extensive periodontitis and 90% using the CDC-AAP protocol for severe periodontitis (P = 0.09). Misclassification was nondifferential when subjects were classified according either to the EWP5 or the aligned CDC-AAP protocols, while the reliability using the original CDC-AAP protocol depended on the extent of bleeding on probing, CAL ≥3 mm and PD ≥4 mm.
This study suggests the EWP5 protocol is less error-prone than the CDC-AAP protocol in adult subjects with perceived need for periodontal treatment, as a result of intra-examiner less-than-perfect reliability of periodontal clinical parameters. Extensive or severe cases presented similar misclassification. Further studies using survey-like conditions are recommended to confirm these findings.
本研究旨在评估和比较目前研究中使用的两种操作方案对牙周炎的误诊情况,这是由于检查者内部其形成性临床参数的可靠性欠佳所致。
由一名检查者在相隔1周的时间从148名自认为需要牙周治疗的成年人中获取全口重复记录(每颗牙6个位点)的探诊深度(PD)和临床附着水平(CAL)。根据第五届欧洲牙周病学研讨会(EWP5)提出的方案以及美国疾病控制与预防中心和美国牙周病学会(CDC - AAP)之间的合作方案,对这些记录进行分析以对牙周炎患者进行分类。
分别根据EWP5和CDC - AAP方案,100%和91.2%的受试者被分类为牙周炎病例。根据EWP5和CDC - AAP方案,分别在95%和85%的已分类受试者中观察到重测一致性。差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。就分类类别数量而言,对方案进行调整后,使用EWP5方案对广泛型牙周炎的重测一致性为95%,使用CDC - AAP方案对重度牙周炎的重测一致性为90%,二者相似(P = 0.09)。当根据EWP5或调整后的CDC - AAP方案对受试者进行分类时,误诊是无差异的,而使用原始CDC - AAP方案时的可靠性取决于探诊出血程度、CAL≥3mm和PD≥4mm。
本研究表明,对于自认为需要牙周治疗的成年受试者,由于检查者内部牙周临床参数的可靠性欠佳,EWP5方案比CDC - AAP方案更不易出错。广泛型或重度病例的误诊情况相似。建议使用类似调查的条件进行进一步研究以证实这些发现。