Objective: Determine the feasibility of utilizing longitudinal electronic dental record (EDR) data to track change over time in patient periodontal disease (PD) and to generate three patient cohorts: 1) patients whose disease did not change over time, 2) patients whose PD progressed, and 3) patients whose disease improved over time using informatics approaches. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 28,908 patients who received a comprehensive oral evaluation between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, at the Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) clinics. We developed and tested three automated computer applications to: 1) diagnose periodontitis cases from periodontal charting, 2) retrieve clinician-documented diagnoses from clinical notes, and 3) track disease change over time. We also evaluated the density of longi-tudinal EDR data for the following follow-up times: 1) none, 2) up to 5 years, 3) >5 and <=10 years, and 4) >10 and <=15 years Results: Thirty-four percent (n=9,954) of the study cohort had up to five years of follow-up visits with an average of 2.78 visits with periodontal charting information. An average of three patient visits per year that contained periodontal charts (63,552) were utilized to obtain a diagnosis, which is considered excellent. For clinician-documented diagnoses from clinical notes, 42% of patients (n=5,562) had at least two PD diagnoses to determine their disease change. In this cohort with cli-nician-documented diagnoses, 72% percent of patients (n=3,919) did not have a disease status change between their first and last visits, 669 (13%) patients' disease status progressed, and 589 (11%) patients’ disease improved. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing longitudinal EDR data to track disease changes over 15 years during the observation study period. We found excellent longitudinal data when diagnoses generated from periodontal charting were considered (three visits per pa-tient). This information can be now utilized for studying the clinical course of periodontitis.

Objective: To develop two automated computer algorithms to extract information from clinical notes, and to generate three cohorts of patients (disease improvement, disease progression, and no disease change) to track periodontal disease (PD) change over time using longitudinal electronic dental records (EDR). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 28,908 patients who received a comprehensive oral evaluation between 1 January 2009, and 31 December 2014, at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) clinics. We utilized various Python libraries, such as Pandas, TensorFlow, and PyTorch, and a natural language tool kit to develop and test computer algorithms. We tested the performance through a manual review process by generating a confusion matrix. We calculated precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to evaluate the performances of the algorithms. Finally, we evaluated the density of longitudinal EDR data for the following follow-up times: (1) None; (2) Up to 5 years; (3) > 5 and ≤ 10 years; and (4) >10 and ≤ 15 years. Results: Thirty-four percent (n = 9954) of the study cohort had up to five years of follow-up visits, with an average of 2.78 visits with periodontal charting information. For clinician-documented diagnoses from clinical notes, 42% of patients (n = 5562) had at least two PD diagnoses to determine their disease change. In this cohort, with clinician-documented diagnoses, 72% percent of patients (n = 3919) did not have a disease status change between their first and last visits, 669 (13%) patients’ disease status progressed, and 589 (11%) patients’ disease improved. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing longitudinal EDR data to track disease changes over 15 years during the observation study period. We provided detailed steps and computer algorithms to clean and preprocess the EDR data and generated three cohorts of patients. This information can now be utilized for studying clinical courses using artificial intelligence and machine learning methods.

The major significance of the 2017 gingivitis classification criteria is utilizing a simple, objective, and reliable clinical sign, bleeding on probing score (BOP%), to diagnose gingivitis. However, studies report variations in gingivitis diagnosis with the potential to under- or over-estimating disease incidents. This study determined the agreement between gingivitis diagnoses generated using the 2017 gingivitis criteria (BOP%) versus diagnoses made using BOP% and other gingival visual assessments. We conducted a retrospective study of 28,908 patients’ dental records (EDR) between January-2009 and December-2014, at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. We developed computational and NLP approaches to automatically diagnose gingivitis cases from BOP% using the 2017 classification and diagnoses recorded in clinical notes determined through BOP% and visual assessments. Subsequently, we determined the agreement between BOP%-generated diagnoses and clinician-recorded diagnoses. A thirty-four percent agreement was present between BOP%-generated diagnoses and clinician-recorded diagnoses for disease status (no gingivitis/gingivitis) and a 9% agreement for the disease extent (localized/generalized gingivitis). The automated programs and NLP performed excellently with 99.5% and 98% f-1 measures, respectively. Sixty-six percent of patients diagnosed with gingivitis were reclassified as having healthy gingiva based on the 2017 new diagnostic classification. The results indicate potential challenges with clinicians adopting the new diagnostic criterion as they transition to using the BOP% alone and not considering the visual signs of inflammation. Periodic training and calibration could facilitate clinicians’ and researchers’ adoption of the new diagnostic system. The informatics approaches developed could be utilized to automate diagnostic findings from EDR charting and clinical notes.