4.6 Article

Significance of Periodontal Risk Assessment in the recurrence of periodontitis and tooth loss

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 191-199

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01508.x

关键词

compliance; maintenance care; periodontitis; progression; recurrence; risk factors; SPT; supportive periodontal therapy; tooth loss

资金

  1. Clinical Research Foundation (CRF)
  2. Swiss National Foundation [3200-0377763.93/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Aim To investigate the association of the Periodontal Risk Assessment (PRA) model categories with periodontitis recurrence and tooth loss during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and to explore the role of patient compliance. Material and Methods In a retrospective cohort, PRA was performed for 160 patients after active periodontal therapy (APT) and after 9.5 +/- 4.5 years of SPT. The recurrence of periodontitis and tooth loss were analysed according to the patient's risk profile (low, moderate or high) after APT and compliance with SPT. The association of risk factors with tooth loss and recurrence of periodontitis was investigated using logistic regression analysis. Results In 18.2% of patients with a low-risk profile, in 42.2% of patients with a moderate-risk profile and in 49.2% of patients with a high-risk profile after APT, periodontitis recurred. During SPT, 1.61 +/- 2.8 teeth/patient were lost. High-risk profile patients lost significantly more teeth (2.59 +/- 3.9) than patients with moderate- (1.02 +/- 1.8) or low-risk profiles (1.18 +/- 1.9) (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.0229). Patients with erratic compliance lost significantly (Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.0067) more teeth (3.11 +/- 4.5) than patients compliant with SPT (1.07 +/- 1.6). Conclusions In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a high-risk patient profile according to the PRA model at the end of APT was associated with recurrence of periodontitis. Another significant factor for recurrence of periodontitis was an SPT duration of more than 10 years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据