Sekundo Caroline, Bölk Tobias, Kalmus Olivier, Listl Stefan
Translational Health Economics Group (THE Group), Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Dentistry-Quality and Safety of Oral Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, 6525 Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 14;10(2):287. doi: 10.3390/jcm10020287.
Periodontitis is interrelated with various other chronic diseases. Recent evidence suggests that treatment of periodontitis improves glycemic control in diabetes patients and reduces the costs of diabetes treatment. So far, however, screening for periodontitis in non-dental settings has been complicated by a lack of easily applicable and reliable screening tools which can be applied by non-dental professionals. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a short seven-item tool developed by the German Society for Periodontology (DG PARO) to screen for periodontitis by means of patient-reported information. A total of 88 adult patients filled in the patient-reported Periodontitis Risk Score (pPRS; range: 0 points = lowest periodontitis risk; 20 points = very high periodontitis risk) questionnaire before dental check-up at Heidelberg University Hospital. Subsequent clinical assessments according to Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR) were compared with pPRS scores. The diagnostic accuracy of pPRS at different cutoff values was assessed according to sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values, as well as Receiver-Operator-Characteristic curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), and logistic regression analysis. According to combined specificity and sensitivity (AUC = 0.86; 95%-CI: 0.76-0.95), the diagnostic accuracy of the pPRS for detecting periodontal inflammation (PSR ≥ 3) was highest for a pPRS cutoff distinguishing between pPRS scores < 7 vs. ≥ 7. Patients with pPRS scores ≥ 7 had a 36.09 (95%-CI: 9.82-132.61) times higher chance of having a PSR ≥ 3 than patients with scores < 7. In conclusion, the pPRS may be considered an appropriately accurate stand-alone tool for the screening for periodontitis.
牙周炎与多种其他慢性疾病相互关联。最近的证据表明,牙周炎的治疗可改善糖尿病患者的血糖控制,并降低糖尿病治疗成本。然而,到目前为止,在非牙科环境中筛查牙周炎一直很复杂,因为缺乏非牙科专业人员可以使用的易于应用且可靠的筛查工具。本研究的目的是评估由德国牙周病学会(DG PARO)开发的一个简短的七项工具通过患者报告信息筛查牙周炎的诊断准确性。共有88名成年患者在海德堡大学医院进行牙科检查前填写了患者报告的牙周炎风险评分(pPRS;范围:0分=最低牙周炎风险;20分=非常高的牙周炎风险)问卷。随后根据牙周筛查与记录(PSR)进行的临床评估与pPRS评分进行比较。根据敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值,以及受试者操作特征曲线、曲线下面积(AUC)和逻辑回归分析,评估不同临界值下pPRS的诊断准确性。根据综合特异性和敏感性(AUC = 0.86;95%置信区间:0.76 - 0.95),对于区分pPRS评分<7与≥7的临界值,pPRS检测牙周炎症(PSR≥3)的诊断准确性最高。pPRS评分≥7的患者发生PSR≥3的可能性是评分<7的患者的36.09(95%置信区间:9.82 - 132.61)倍。总之,pPRS可被认为是一种用于筛查牙周炎的准确性适当的独立工具。