An accuracy study of the clinical diagnosis of periodontitis in pregnant women

Abstract

Background There exists a diverse range of criteria used in epidemiological studies for the diagnosis of periodontitis. The results from these studies should be evaluated with consideration to the diagnostic criteria used, and this may account for differences between studies especially in some population groups such as pregnant females. The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic criteria used in a variety of epidemiologic studies of periodontitis in pregnant females. Methods An accuracy study with cross‐sectional design was performed out from a database of 671 pregnant females, using six different sets of criteria for the diagnosis of periodontitis. Women were classified for periodontitis, as follows: Center for Disease Control and Prevention/American Academy of Periodontology (CDC/AAP, 2012 criterion), the gold standard, Gomes‐Filho et al.(2018) criterion, Albandar et al.(2007) criterion, Bassani et al.(2007) criterion, López et al.(2002) criterion, and Nesse et al.(2008) criterion. For comparison amongst the gold standard and the other criteria, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratio were determined. Results The frequency of periodontitis ranged from 25.0% to 90.2%. The Bassani et al. (2007) criterion was found to be more sensitive among the studies, and thus more suitable for diagnostic screening studies. Gomes‐Filho et al.(2018), Albandar et al. (2007), López et al. (2002), and Nesse et al. (2008) criteria were considered more specific, which makes them more useful for studies of periodontitis with the aim of using diagnosis for confirmation of disease. Conclusions A variation in the occurrence of periodontitis was observed. The criterion must be chosen according to the research aims and population characteristics.

Periodontal Inflamed Surface Area Is Associated With Increased Gestational Blood Pressure and Uric Acid Levels Among Pregnant Women From Rural North China

“…PISA values comprise a continuous quantitative variable that prevents the loss of information inherent to the categorization of periodontal disease categories ( 29 ). Moreover, different case-definition criteria applied for periodontal diagnosis in pregnant women yield widely variable disease estimates, and PISA may be a more suitable measure of inflammatory burden ( 30 ). Furthermore, periodontal inflammation as measured by PISA values has been associated with high blood pressure in a large-scale study of over 8,000 subjects ( 31 ).…”

Prevalence of periodontal disease in pregnant patients: a systematic review

“…Conceição SDS. et al 12 Realizaron un estudio con el fin de evaluar qué criterio para diagnóstico de periodontitis en mujeres embarazadas era el más eficaz, estudiando los resultados en 671 mujeres embarazadas, los resultados fueron de 25,0% a 90,2% referente a la frecuencia de periodontitis en embarazas, concluyendo que el criterio para su diagnóstico debería ser en conjunto con el objetivo de estudio a investigar.…”

Oral and General Health Conditions Involved in Periodontal Status During Pregnancy: a Prospective Cohort Study.

“…However, some authors claim that these ndings of increased clinical attachment loss and probe depth (basic periodontal clinical variables), were the result of incorrect measurements of the in amed gingiva caused by gingivitis, as well as reduced resistance to probe penetration [9]. In addition, the scienti c community in the eld of dentistry has tried to reach a consensus in terms of standardizing periodontitis assessments and case de nition [27] to reduce the high variability in prevalence results observed in different studies. In the present study, the percentage of women suffering periodontitis based on most recent diagnostic criteria [25] was higher during late pregnancy (28.6% in third trimester and 17% in rst trimester).…”