↓ Skip to main content

Partial recording protocols for periodontal disease assessment in epidemiological surveys

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de saúde pública, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Partial recording protocols for periodontal disease assessment in epidemiological surveys
Published in
Cadernos de saúde pública, January 2007
DOI 10.1590/s0102-311x2007000100005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Vianna Vettore, Gabriela de Almeida Lamarca, Anna Thereza Thomé Leão, Aubrey Sheiham, Maria do Carmo Leal

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to compare the reliability of four partial-mouth protocols for assessing shallow, moderate, and deep sites for periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment levels. Periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment level measurements were recorded for 156 subjects (age > or = 30). The four models of partial-mouth protocols compared were: Model I: all sites per tooth in the random half-mouth protocol randomly selecting one maxillary and mandibular quadrant, Model II: buccal sites in a full-mouth protocol, Model III: buccal sites in the random half-mouth protocol randomly selecting one maxillary and mandibular quadrant, Model IV: all sites per tooth using Community Periodontal Index teeth. In comparison with full mouth examination, Model I did not show significant differences for periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment level parameters. Models II and III were different for some periodontal pocket depth means, and Model IV significantly overestimated all clinical parameters related to periodontal disease. Model I appears to be adequate to substitute for the full-mouth examination to assess the prevalence and severity of chronic periodontal disease in adults.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%