Periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning – An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2022-07-13
Language
American English
Embargo Lift Date
Department
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Wiley
Abstract

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.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
Kakar A, Blanchard S, Shin D, Maupomé G, Eckert GJ, John V. Periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning – An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system. Journal of Dental Education. 2022;86(12):1573-1580. doi:10.1002/jdd.13037
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Source
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}
Collections