Volume 84, Issue 5 p. 606-613
Clinical Science

Periodontal Diagnosis Affected by Variation in Terminology

John A. Martin

John A. Martin

Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network, private practice, State College, PA.

PreViser, Mt. Vernon, WA.

Search for more papers by this author
Ashley C. Grill

Ashley C. Grill

Department of Dental Hygiene, New York City College of Technology, City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

PEARL Network, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York, NY.

Search for more papers by this author
Abigail G. Matthews

Abigail G. Matthews

PEARL Network, EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD.

Search for more papers by this author
Don Vena

Don Vena

PEARL Network, EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD.

Search for more papers by this author
Van P. Thompson

Van P. Thompson

Currently, PEARL Network, King's College London Dental Institute, London, UK; previously, PEARL Network, Department of Biomaterials and Biomimetics, College of Dentistry, New York University.

Search for more papers by this author
Ronald G. Craig

Ronald G. Craig

PEARL Network, Department of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, College of Dentistry, New York University.

Search for more papers by this author
Frederick A. Curro

Corresponding Author

Frederick A. Curro

PEARL Network, Department of Oral Pathology, Medicine and Radiology, College of Dentistry, New York University.

Correspondence: Dr. Frederick A. Curro, 380 Second Ave., Suite 302, New York, NY 10010. E-mail: [email protected].Search for more papers by this author
First published: 01 May 2013
Citations: 11

Abstract

Background: The randomized case presentation (RCP) study is designed to assess the degree of diagnostic accuracy for described periodontal cases. This is to lay the basis for practitioner calibration in the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network for future clinical studies.

Methods: The RCP consisted of 10 case scenarios ranging from periodontal health to gingivitis and mild, moderate, and severe periodontitis. Respondents were asked to diagnose the described cases. Survey diagnoses were compared to two existing classifications of periodontal disease status. The RCP was administered via a proprietary electronic data capture system maintained by the PEARL Data Coordinating Center. Standard analytic techniques, including frequency counts and cross-tabulations, were used for categorical data with mean and standard deviation and median values reported for continuous data elements.

Results: Demonstrable variations in periodontal assessment for health, gingivitis, and mild, moderate, and severe periodontitis were found among the 130 PEARL general practitioners who participated in the RCP survey. The highest agreement for diagnosis among dentists was for severe periodontitis (88%) and the lowest for gingivitis (55%). The highest percentage of variation was found in cases with health and gingivitis.

Conclusions: There was variation among PEARL practitioners in periodontal diagnosis that may affect treatment outcomes. Our findings add clinical support to recent publications suggesting a need for standardization of terminology in periodontitis diagnosis.