Retrospective study of tooth loss in 92 treated periodontal patients

Checchi, Luigi; Montevecchi, Marco; Gatto, Maria Rosaria; Trombelli, Leonardo

doi:10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290710.x

Cited by 163 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have emphasized the efficacy of regular SPT in maintaining long-term positive outcomes (19,36,37). In our study, 17 patients (26.6%), who complied with the annual SPT, experienced lower SPT-TL (0.05 teeth/patient/year) and positive bone healing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Root abnormalities and nonsurgical management of generalized aggressive periodontitis

Lü

Meng

et al. 2017

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Root abnormalities and nonsurgical management of generalized aggressive periodontitis

Lü

Meng

et al. 2017

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The prescribed PM recall in included studies varied from 3 to 6 months. Using CASP criteria we rated through consensus, the quality and strength of one study as Excellent (Ng et al), 22 three studies as Good (Costa et al, 23 Miyamoto et al, 24 Tsami et al 25 ), two as Fair (Checchi et al, 26 Wilson et al 27 ) and two as Poor (Seirafi et al, 28 Wood, et al 29 ). Table 1 provides the specific details for each article.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appropriate Recall Interval for Periodontal Maintenance: A Systematic Review

Farooqi¹,

Wehler

Gibson

et al. 2015

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the evidence to support a specific time interval between periodontal maintenance (PM) visits.Methods-Relevant articles were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed using specific search terms, until April, 2014, resulting in 1095 abstracts and/or titles with possible relevance. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) guidelines were used to evaluate the strength of studies and synthesize findings. If mean recall interval was not reported for study groups, authors were contacted to attempt to retrieve this information.Results-Eight cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. No randomized control trials were found. All included studies assessed the effect of PM recall intervals in terms of compliance with a recommended regimen (3-6 months) as a primary outcome. Shorter PM intervals (3-6 months) favored more teeth retention but also statistically insignificant differences between RC and IC/EC, or converse findings are also found. In the 2 studies reporting mean recall interval in groups, significant tooth loss differences were noted as the interval neared the 12 month limit.Conclusions-Evidence for a specific recall interval (e.g. every 3 months) for all patients following periodontal therapy is weak. Further studies, such as RCTs or large electronic database evaluations would be appropriate. The merits of risk-based recommendations over fixed recall interval regimens should be explored.

show abstract

“…A baseline sample of 500 patients was required (Martinez‐Canut, 2015) for a final sample of 22 LTO index 4 and 5. Interestingly, these 22 patients would represent 4.4% of our baseline sample of 500 patients, which is consistent with the actual percentage of patients experiencing higher TLPD rates reported in the literature, with the use of genuine TLPD samples instead of overall tooth loss samples (Chambrone & Chambrone, 2006; Checchi et al., 2002; Fardal et al., 2004; Lü et al., 2013; Muzzi et al., 2006). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive approach to assigning periodontal prognosis

Martinez-Canut

Llobell

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThe purpose of this retrospective case series study was to evaluate the usefulness and performance of a comprehensive approach to assigning periodontal prognosis by assessing the risk of tooth loss due to periodontal disease (TLPD) and estimate the survival time (ST) of periodontally compromised teeth (PCT).Material and MethodsThe Long‐Term Outcome (LTO) index was utilized to assess the risk of TLPD, at baseline, in 100 patients following periodontal maintenance for a mean 24.7 year (±2.4). A TLPD prediction model was utilized to assign ST to PCT. The performance of the TLPD prediction based on both parameters was assessed.ResultsThe mean TLPD rate increased as the LTO index increased (Kruskal–Wallis p < .001). The percentage of TLPD increased as the ST decreased, with significantly differences between the LTO categories <4 and ≥4 for all ST intervals (Mann–Whitney p < .001 to p .021).Only 21% of PCT were lost. This percentage was 58% for teeth assigned the shortest ST and increased to 71% and 88% for these teeth in LTO ≥4 patients.ConclusionsThis approach might be useful to predict TLPD in patients with an initial higher risk of TLPD while it was not useful in patients with lower risk of TLPD.

show abstract

Retrospective study of tooth loss in 92 treated periodontal patients

Abstract: The results demonstrated a low tooth mortality rate in periodontal patients following active treatment combined with a strict maintenance program.

Cited by 163 publications

References 31 publications

Root abnormalities and nonsurgical management of generalized aggressive periodontitis

Root abnormalities and nonsurgical management of generalized aggressive periodontitis

Appropriate Recall Interval for Periodontal Maintenance: A Systematic Review

A comprehensive approach to assigning periodontal prognosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About