Classification and diagnosis of aggressive periodontitis

Fine, Daniel H.; Patil, Amey G.; Loos, Bruno G.

doi:10.1002/jper.16-0712

Cited by 88 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last 30 years, the classification of periodontitis has been repeatedly modified in an attempt to align it with emerging scientific evidence. The workshop agreed that, consistent with current knowledge on pathophysiology, three forms of periodontitis can be identified: necrotizing periodontitis , periodontitis as a manifestation of systemic disease , and the forms of the disease previously recognized as “chronic” or “aggressive”, now grouped under a single category, “periodontitis” . In revising the classification, the workshop agreed on a classification framework for periodontitis further characterized based on a multidimensional staging and grading system that could be adapted over time as new evidence emerges …”

Section: A New Classification Of Periodontitismentioning

confidence: 79%

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

Caton

Armitage

Berglundh

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

1,032

772

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co-sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015. An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri-implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus. This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable. The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table ).

show abstract

Section: A New Classification Of Periodontitismentioning

confidence: 79%

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

Caton

Armitage

Berglundh

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

1,032

772

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 It is note-worthy from the results of clinical parameters, plaque scores either remained consistent or decreased significantly around teeth and SDIs. The results of the present short follow-up study showed that BOP and CAL around SDIs of the GAgP subjects were significantly higher than in the periodontally healthy subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…11 Moreover, periodontal sites harboring Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans demonstrate deeper probing depths (PDs) with or without clinical signs of inflammation. 11 Moreover, periodontal sites harboring Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans demonstrate deeper probing depths (PDs) with or without clinical signs of inflammation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes of short dental implants placed in posterior jaws of patients with treated generalized aggressive periodontitis: A 3‐year follow‐up study

Akram

Vohra

Sheikh

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Studies assessing clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters around short dental implants (SDIs) in treated generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP) patients are scant.Objectives: This 3-year follow-up study aimed to compare the clinical peri-implant and radiographic bone status around SDIs placed in partially edentulous patients treated for GAgP and periodontally healthy patients and to assess the implant success rate between both the groups. Materials and Methods:A total of seven patients clinically diagnosed with GAgP and seven periodontally healthy patients was included in the clinical study. Forty-eight (29 maxilla; 19 mandible) and 11 (8 maxilla; 3 mandible) SDIs were placed in the GAgP group and healthy group, respectively. Plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at six sites around all teeth and implants. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was studied incorporating in a specialized software and examined on a calibrated computer display screen with the help of an image analyzer. Patient satisfaction was recorded using a questionnaire sheet that contained questions regarding esthetics and function of the restorations. Results:The implant survival rate after 3 years was 81.25%. BOP and CAL around SDIs of GAgP patients were significantly higher than in periodontally healthy subjects (P = .01) throughout the follow-up. CAL around the teeth of GAgP patients was significantly greater during the follow-up than around the teeth of periodontal healthy subjects (P = .02). The PI and BOP between the teeth and implants showed no statistical significant difference. The mean PD at teeth was 0.4 mm greater than at implants. Implants showed significantly increased attachment loss than teeth (P = .01). The overall mean satisfaction of visual analogue scale was 12.8 ± 1.45.Conclusion: This short-term follow-up study indicates SDIs remain functionally stable in the posterior jaws of treated GAgP patients. K E Y W O R D Saggressive periodontitis, dental scaling, short dental implants, survival rate

show abstract

“…In adults, what is the progression of periodontitis in terms of clinical attachment loss, radiographic bone loss, and tooth loss? The reason for limiting the investigation to adults, i.e., persons aged ≥18 years was a request to constrain the investigation in this manner to avoid overlap with a separate investigation into periodontal diseases in younger individuals for the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The word “rate” is used here, not in the usual epidemiologic sense of proportion of people affected by a condition, but instead in the sense of how quickly the disease deteriorates. Age of onset is not the topic of this review and will not be addressed further, although is investigated by another review …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%