Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2009 June;58(6) > Minerva Stomatologica 2009 June;58(6):277-87

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA STOMATOLOGICA

A Journal on Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Odontostomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Indexed/Abstracted in: CAB, EMBASE, Index to Dental Literature, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Minerva Stomatologica 2009 June;58(6):277-87

language: English, Italian

Comparison between two methods for periodontal risk assessment

Trombelli L. 1, Farina R. 1, Ferrari S. 1, Pasetti P. 2, Calura G. 1

1 Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
2 Local Health Authority of Ferrara, Public Health Department, Unit of Epidemiology Ferrara, Italy


FULL TEXT  


Aim. Risk assessment is increasingly important in periodontology. The aim of this article was to propose a new objective method (UniFe) in order to simplify the risk assessment procedures. UniFe was compared with a computer-based risk assessment tool (PAT®).
Methods. Risk scores for both UniFe and PAT® were calculated for 107 patients, randomly selected among patients seeking care at a specialist periodontal clinic. For UniFe risk calculation, the “parameter scores” assigned to smoking status, diabetic status, number of sites with probing depth ≥5 mm, bleeding on probing score (BoP) and bone loss/age, were added and the sum was referred to a “risk score”, ranging from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). PAT® generated a risk score on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk).
Results. The mean UniFe and PAT® risk scores were 4.5±0.9 and 4.6±0.7, respectively. Cohen k-statistics amounted to 0.7, suggesting a good agreement between methods. Difference in risk score between methods was significantly explained by the parameter scores of BoP and bone loss/age (adjusted R2=0.378).
Conclusion. The comparison between UniFe and PAT® demonstrated a good level of agreement between methods in a randomly selected population referred to a periodontal clinic.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail