Browsing by Author "John, Vanchit"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning – An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system
    (Wiley, 2022-12) Kakar, Arushi; Blanchard, Steven; Shin, Daniel; Maupomé, Gerardo; Eckert, George J.; John, Vanchit; Periodontology, School of Dentistry
    Objectives Substantial variations are seen among clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment planning of periodontal diseases. Accurate diagnosis and treatment planning are fundamental requirements for effective outcome-based patient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the understanding of the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology 2017 periodontal disease classifications in diagnoses and treatment plans across four study groups. Methods The study recruited at least 20 participants in each of the four study groups. These included 1) Periodontal faculty and residents at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD-PF) 2) IUSD general practice faculty (IUSD-GPF), 3) private practice periodontists (PPP), and 4) general practitioners (GP). The participants were provided with 10 HIPPA de-identified case records and a link to a survey. The survey comprised five demographic questions and two questions on diagnosis and treatment plan for each case along with a fixed list of responses. The responses were then compared against gold standards that were determined by a group of three board-certified periodontists. Results Overall, for diagnostic questions, GP (69%) were correct significantly less often than IUSD-PF (86%, p < 0.001), IUSD-GPF (79%, p = 0.002), and PPP (80%, p = 0.001). No significant differences (p > 0.05) in the overall correct treatment plan responses were found among the four groups (IUSD-PF: 69%, IUSD-GPF: 62%, PPP: 68%, and GP: 60%). The multi-rater kappas for with-in-group agreement on overall diagnosis ranged from 0.36 (GP) to 0.55 (IUSD-PF) and on overall treatment plan ranged from 0.32 (IUSD-GPF) to 0.42 (IUSD-PF). Overall agreement for diagnosis and treatment plans among the four groups was relatively low and none of the groups were statistically different from each other (p > 0.05). Conclusion Regular participation in calibration sessions may lead to more accurate adoption of the 2017 periodontal classification and thereby help provide consistent diagnosis and treatment.