Haffajee A D, Socransky S S, Goodson J M
J Clin Periodontol. 1983 May;10(3):298-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1983.tb01278.x.
The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate methods to detect periods of destructive periodontal disease activity in individual sites using pairs of repeated attachment level measurements. Attachment level measurements were made at 6 sites on every tooth in 22 individuals with radiographic evidence of periodontal destruction, and were repeated within 7 days. A total of 3414 sites were monitored at 2-month intervals for approximately 1 year. 3 analytical procedures were used to test for significant changes in attachment level. For regression analysis, a linear least squares fit function of time in days vs attachment level was computed for each site and the slope tested for difference from 0. Running medians of 3 were used to smooth attachment level measurements and changes greater than 2 mm in the smoothed curves were considered significant. By the tolerance method, differences between pairs of attachment level measurements were used to compare the mean change and the site specific variability of that change. The proportion of specific agreement (Ps) for breaking down sites was highest between the tolerance and running median methods (Ps = 0.63). Overall agreement (kappa), which included sites which showed "loss", "gain", and no change was 0.56. By regression analysis (P less than 0.01), 175 sites were identified as having significant attachment loss and 79 sites were identified as improving. By running medians these figures were 90 and 50, and by tolerance 94 and 40, respectively. Each of the 3 methods had certain advantages. Regression analysis was particularly sensitive to gradual changes in slope whereas the running median method detected abrupt changes in attachment level. The tolerance method was well suited to detecting changes over a short period of time. The tolerance and running median methods detected more breaking down sites on the molars and lower incisors and on interproximal surfaces; whereas regression analysis did not show these differences.
本研究的目的是评估使用重复的附着水平测量对来检测个体部位破坏性牙周疾病活动期的方法。对22名有牙周破坏影像学证据的个体的每颗牙齿的6个部位进行附着水平测量,并在7天内重复测量。总共3414个部位每隔2个月监测约1年。使用3种分析程序来测试附着水平的显著变化。对于回归分析,计算每个部位天数与附着水平的线性最小二乘拟合函数,并测试斜率与0的差异。使用3的移动中位数来平滑附着水平测量值,平滑曲线中大于2mm的变化被认为是显著的。通过公差法,使用附着水平测量对之间的差异来比较平均变化和该变化的部位特异性变异性。在公差法和移动中位数法之间,分解部位的特异性一致性比例(Ps)最高(Ps = 0.63)。总体一致性(kappa),包括显示“丧失”、“增加”和无变化的部位,为0.56。通过回归分析(P小于0.01),确定175个部位有显著的附着丧失,79个部位有改善。通过移动中位数,这些数字分别为90和50,通过公差法分别为94和40。这3种方法各有一定优势。回归分析对斜率的逐渐变化特别敏感,而移动中位数法检测附着水平的突然变化。公差法非常适合检测短时间内的变化。公差法和移动中位数法在磨牙、下切牙和邻面检测到更多的分解部位;而回归分析没有显示这些差异。