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

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES   

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

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

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


PDF


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