Differential Diagnosis between Chronic versus Aggressive Periodontitis and Staging of Aggressive Periodontitis: A Cross-sectional Study
Differential Diagnosis between Chronic versus Aggressive Periodontitis and Staging of Aggressive Periodontitis: A Cross-sectional Study
复制标题
慢性牙周炎与侵袭性牙周炎的鉴别诊断以及侵袭性牙周炎的分期：一项横断面研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Nibali Luigi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Ramachandra;V. Gupta;D. Mehta;Kalyan C. Gundavarapu;Nibali Luigi
背景：区分慢性牙周炎（CP）和侵袭性牙周炎（AgP）是一个挑战。本研究的目的是评估CP与AgP之间的诊断差异，以及基于牙周病医生、口腔医学专家和普通牙科医生（GDPs）之间AgP疾病分期指数的AgP分期。材料与方法：15例诊断为CP或AgP的病例被纳入“病例文件”，并以电子方式发送给75名受访者。病例文件包括所有病例的详细病史、牙周图表、临床特征、图像和X线照片。要求对病例进行诊断和分期（如果诊断为AgP）。间隔1个月后，重新排序的案件文件（案件顺序不同）再次发送给答复者。统计分析：计算描述性统计量，包括频率和百分比。Pearson卡方检验用于分析所收集的数据。结果如下：对于“病例文件”，10.17%的回答与作者的诊断不同，而4.48%的回答与作者的AgP分期不同。总体响应的一致性在0.69-0.84的范围内，这被认为是良好的。诊断的反应比较显示，口腔医学专家和GDP之间的差异有统计学意义（P = 0.009）。结论：关于CP与AgP的诊断，受访者之间存在差异。基于所列标准的AgP分期显示出较低的变化。
Background: Differentiating between chronic periodontitis (CP) and aggressive periodontitis (AgP) is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the variations in diagnosis between CP versus AgP and the staging of AgP based on the disease-staging index for AgP among periodontists, specialists in oral medicine, and general dental practitioners (GDPs). Materials and Methods: Fifteen cases diagnosed as either CP or AgP were included in a “case document” and sent electronically to 75 respondents. Case document included a detailed history with periodontal charting, clinical features, images, and radiographs for all the cases. Diagnosis and staging for the case (if diagnosed as AgP) were requested. A reordered case document (cases in a different sequence) was again sent to respondents after a gap of 1 month. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics including frequency and percentage were calculated. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to analyze the data collected. Results: For the “case document,” 10.17% of the responses were different from those of the authors for diagnosis, whereas 4.48% of the responses were different from those of the authors for the staging of AgP. The agreement in the overall responses was in the range of 0.69–0.84, which was considered good. Comparison of the responses for diagnosis showed statistically significant (P = 0.009) difference between specialists in oral medicine and GDPs. Conclusions: Variations exist among respondents regarding the diagnosis of CP versus AgP. Staging of AgP based on the listed criteria showed low variations.
影响因子：
18.6
作者：
Demmer RT;Papapanou PN
通讯作者：
Papapanou PN