Influence of psychological attachment patterns on periodontal disease – a pilot study with 310 compliant patients

Abstract

Psychological attachment patterns are a promising target for understanding periodontal disease in addition to known psychosocial risk factors.

Is Psychological Stress a Possible Risk Factor for Periodontal Disease? A Systematic Review

“…Changes in the clinical attachment level (CAL) were evaluated by most of the studies; however, the study by Graetz et al [42] used alveolar bone loss as the criterion for established periodontal disease. The plaque index and gingival index were recorded as additional clinical parameters in nine and four studies, respectively.…”

“…A longitudinal study was conducted by Graetz et al [42] to find out the associations between attachment patterns and periodontal parameters among 310 patients with aggressive (AgP) and chronic periodontitis (CP).They concluded that psychological attachment patterns are a promising target for understanding periodontal disease in addition to known psychosocial risk factors. Stress alters the production of pro inflammatory cytokines, causing substantial delay in wound healing and treatment outcome [43].…”

“…Two of the 18 studies evaluated patients prospectively during periodontal therapy. Graetz et al, [42] in a 24-month prospective clinical trial, recorded the data on annual PPD and complete X-ray documentation at the baseline, at the end of the active periodontal treatment and at the last documented visit of the supportive periodontal therapy. Bakri et al, [4] recorded the clinical parameters at the baseline and 6 months after non-surgical periodontal treatment.…”

“…Two of the studies were conducted only with women [16,34], and two studies did not mention the gender distribution [29,31]. In most of the studies [4,17,[28][29][30]37,38,[40][41][42], the participants were patients at a university periodontal clinic or private dental practice. Five studies [31,33,35,36,41] were epidemiological surveys involving the residents in a particular area or a randomly selected general population.…”

“…Twelve studies were cross-sectional [16,17,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37], three were casecontrol [38][39][40] studies, one was a cohort study [41] and two were prospective clinical trial [4,42] studies, comprising 5051 individuals. Two of the studies were conducted only with women [16,34], and two studies did not mention the gender distribution [29,31].…”