RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Oral smokeless tobacco consumption has been considered as a major risk factor for oral cancer, its role as a risk factor for periodontal disease is less well documented when compared to that of relationship between smoking and periodontal disease. AIM: The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to evaluate the effect of various forms of tobacco consumption i.e., smoking and smokeless tobacco forms on periodontal status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 120 subjects with the habit of tobacco consumption, based on form of tobacco use they were divided into Group 1 (smoking), Group 2 (Smokeless tobacco), and Group 3 (smokers and smokeless tobacco users). The periodontal status for each group was evaluated by measuring Oral Hygiene Index- Simplified (OHI-S) and Community Periodontal Index (CPI) for Probing Depth (CPI-PD) and Attachment Loss (CPI-AL). RESULTS: OHI-S mean scores in Group 1 (3.53±1.03), Group 2 (3.06±0.92) and Group 3 (3.45±0.96) were similar, which were not statistically significant (p>0.076). The mean values of CPI-PD were 3.75±0.44 in Group 1, 3.65±0.48 in Group 2, 3.80±0.41 in Group 3 with no significant difference between the three Groups (p> 0.309). When the mean values of CPI-AL (0.95±0.75 in Group 1, 1.40±0.74 in group 2, and 1.55±0.60 in Group 3) were compared in between the Groups, a statistically significant difference was observed in Group 3 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results showed that tobacco consumption in both forms caused poor periodontal status, with smokeless tobacco users having more amount of attachment loss than smokers.
RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the awareness of periodontal disease, its influence on general health, and attitude toward periodontal disease management among medical faculty in Guntur district. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 150 medical faculty members from different specialties in Guntur district were included in the study. A self-administered questionnaire was prepared based on knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys to assess the awareness of periodontal disease and its management. RESULTS: Majority of the study participants (82%) had a previous dental visit. Only 31.3% believed that plaque is the major cause for periodontal disease. 56.7% responded that the relation between periodontal disease and systemic diseases is bidirectional. Only 39.3% were aware that periodontal disease is a risk factor for preterm low-birth weight infants. 52.6% of the medical faculty thought that scaling causes loss of enamel. 54.7% were aware that light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation is used in the periodontal treatment. Medical professionals who visited specialist in their previous dental visit obtained mean periodontal score (5.35 ± 1.686) greater than those who had visited general dentist and the difference is statistically significant (0.024). CONCLUSION: This study clearly demonstrates that medical practitioners had fair knowledge about various aspects of periodontal disease. This was particularly evident among those who have had a previous visit to a dentist. It was also found that young professionals with limited experience in the profession had better knowledge.