Cutress T W, Hunter P B, Hoskins D I
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986 Feb;14(1):39-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01492.x.
692 dental adults in the age ranges, 15-19, 20-29, and 35-44 yr, were assessed for their periodontal conditions and treatment needs using the Periodontal Index (PI) and Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN). The relative advantages and disadvantages of the two indices were evaluated as epidemiological screening procedures. The CPITN (which calls for examination of only 10 selected teeth) identified higher proportions of adults and teeth with a healthy periodontal condition and also those with periodontitis than the PI (which requires examination of all teeth). The proportion of adults and teeth with gingivitis as the worst condition was greater than when assessed by the PI. Evaluation of individual adult scores by PI and CPITN suggested that the CPITN, despite being a partial recording index only, is more sensitive in identifying existing periodontal conditions and treatment needs than the PI. This is explained by the clinical criteria and periodontal probe utilized in the CPITN. Although the original purposes of the PI and CPITN differ, it is proposed that as a epidemiological screening procedure for assessing periodontal treatment needs the CPITN is to be preferred to the PI.
对年龄在15 - 19岁、20 - 29岁和35 - 44岁的692名成年牙科患者，使用牙周指数（PI）和社区牙周治疗需求指数（CPITN）评估他们的牙周状况和治疗需求。对这两种指数作为流行病学筛查程序的相对优缺点进行了评估。CPITN（仅需检查10颗选定牙齿）比PI（需要检查所有牙齿）识别出牙周状况健康的成年人和牙齿以及患有牙周炎的成年人和牙齿的比例更高。以牙龈炎为最严重状况的成年人和牙齿比例比用PI评估时更高。通过PI和CPITN对个体成年患者得分的评估表明，CPITN尽管只是一个部分记录指数，但在识别现有牙周状况和治疗需求方面比PI更敏感。这可以通过CPITN中使用的临床标准和牙周探针来解释。尽管PI和CPITN的原始目的不同，但建议作为评估牙周治疗需求的流行病学筛查程序，CPITN比PI更可取。
