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

dc.contributor.authorKakar, Arushi
dc.contributor.authorBlanchard, Steven
dc.contributor.authorShin, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorMaupomé, Gerardo
dc.contributor.authorEckert, George J.
dc.contributor.authorJohn, Vanchit
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-17T14:01:08Z
dc.date.available2023-08-17T14:01:08Z
dc.date.issued2022-07-13
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.
dc.identifier.citationKakar 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
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/34954
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.isversionof10.1002/jdd.13037
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectCalibration
dc.subjectClassification
dc.subjectDiagnosis
dc.subjectPeriodontal disease
dc.subjectTreatment plan
dc.titlePeriodontal diagnosis and treatment planning – An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system
dc.typeArticle
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Maupome2022Periodontal-CCBY.pdf
Size:
701.2 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Collections