Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have more oral health problems and higher costs of professional dental care than healthy controls: The Periodontitis Prevalence in ulcerative Colitis and Crohn disease (PPCC) case-control study.

BACKGROUND: To describe the frequency and impact of oral lesions and professional dental care costs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (i.e., Crohn disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC]) compared to matched controls). METHODS: IBD patients and matched controls were surveyed on general anamnestic information, eating and drinking habits, and oral health- and dental care-related questions; IBD patients were additionally surveyed on oral lesions. Problems related to oral lesions and the amount of money spent for professional dental care in the past 12 months were defined as primary outcome parameters. RESULTS: Answers from 1108 IBD patients and 3429 controls were analyzed. About 30% of the patients indicated having had problems with oral lesions, with CD patients having 46% higher odds and having them more often in a generalized form compared to UC patients. Further, self-reported severe periodontitis increased the odds of having oral lesions by almost 2.3-times. However, only about 12.5% of IBD patients were informed by their physician about oral lesions and about 10% indicated receiving treatment for them. Compared to controls, IBD patients required more often dental treatment and spent more money; specifically, UC and CD patients had 27 and 89% higher odds, respectively, for having spent ≥3000 DKK (ca. 440 USD) at the dentist compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients have more often oral health problems and higher expenses for professional dental care compared to matched controls. This included problems with IBD-related oral lesions, but these are rarely addressed by the medical or dental team.

Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors of Orthodontic Patients with Ultrasound and Cone-beam CT. A Cross-sectional Study.

PURPOSE: To use and evaluate two methods for measuring gingival thickness (GT) at mandibular incisors of orthodontic patients and compare their performance in assessing periodontal anatomy through soft tissue thickness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 40 consecutive adult orthodontic patients. GT was measured just before bracket placement at both central mandibular incisors, mid-facially on the buccal aspect, 2 mm apically to the free gingival margin with two methods: clinically with an ultrasound device (USD) and radiographically with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). RESULTS: CBCT measurements were consistently higher than USD measurements, with the difference ranging from 0.13 mm to 0.21 mm. No statistically significant difference was noted between the repeated CBCT measurements at the right central incisor (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI = -0.01, 0.11; p = 0.104). Although the respective results for the left incisor statistically indicated that the measurements were not exactly replicated, the magnitude of the point estimate was small and not clinically significant (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014). Small differences between CBCT measurements made by the 2 examiners at the left central incisor (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014) were detected. However, this difference was minor and also not clinically significant. The respective analysis on the right incisor showed no statistically significant difference (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI = -0.01, 0.11; p = 0.246). CONCLUSIONS: Based on reproducibility, CBCT imaging for gingival thickness assessment proved to be as reliable as ultrasound determination. However, CBCT consistently yielded higher values, albeit at a marginal level, than did the ultrasound device.

Reproducibility of intraoral photography for pink and white tissue assessment - Is it worth the hassle?

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of the shooting angle variation on linear and planimetric measurements of the pink and white tissues on intraoral photographs. METHODS: From intraoral three-dimensional (3D) scans of the anterior region in 10 patients, ninety-nine two-dimensional (2D) "scan pictures" each were generated with different shooting angles, each varying in 5° horizontal and vertical increments. Eleven intraoral photographs of each patient and tooth site were taken free-hand: one shot at baseline and 5 shots after 3 and 6 months at slightly varying shooting angles. Papilla height (PH) and area (PA) and tooth crown area (TCA) were estimated on all photographs; the "best-match-to-baseline" photograph from those taken at 3 and 6 months was chosen by 6 evaluators. RESULTS: Within the first 10° of deviation from the baseline shooting angle, measurements on the 2D "scan pictures" distorted ≤0.5 mm for PH and ≤10% for PA and TCA. Compared to baseline, only 6 out of 100 photographs presented ≥0.5 mm difference in PH, none of the TCA measurements showed distortion ≥10%, and only in 4 instances a ≥10% distortion of the PA was observed. Poor to moderate inter- and intra-rater agreement in choosing the "best-match-to-baseline" photograph was found, but photographs with clinically relevant changes were only seldomly chosen. CONCLUSIONS: Deviations in the shooting angle ≤10° from the baseline shot cause clinically negligible distortions in linear and planimetric measurements. Highly comparable intraoral photographs of the anterior maxillary teeth can be captured "free-hand" in slightly varying perspective, and then selecting the "best-match-to-baseline".

Assessment of Prognosis and Periodontal Treatment Goals Among General Dental Practitioners and Dental Hygienists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate general dental practitioners' (GDPs) and dental hygienists' (DHs) assessment of prognosis, suggested treatment goals, and estimated number of treatment sessions in patients with varying severity of periodontal disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven GDPs and fifty DHs in a Swedish county participated in a questionnaire study, based on three patient cases: a patient with generalised bone loss but no clinical signs of inflammation (well-maintained); a patient with clinical signs of inflammation and generalised bone loss (periodontitis); and a patient with clinical signs of inflammation but no bone loss (gingivitis). In open-ended questions, the clinicians assessed the prognosis in case of no treatment and proposed treatment goals. Furthermore, based on given fixed-alternative options, they estimated the number of treatment sessions needed for successful management of the condition. RESULTS: Based on a response rate of 94%, the majority of clinicians expected a worsening of the periodontal condition in all three patients (well-maintained: 80%; periodontitis: 94%; gingivitis: 60%). The most common treatment goal in all 3 cases was to improve oral health awareness. The majority of clinicians estimated that the periodontitis case needed slightly more treatment sessions (mean: 3.04, 95% CI: 2.83-3.24) compared to the gingivitis (mean: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.75-2.11) or well-maintained patient case (mean: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.60-2.07). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of included clinicians did not perform an individualised risk assessment and did not individually match the number of appointments to the actual periodontal treatment needs of the patient. This may result in overtreatment in some cases and in undertreatment in others, and possibly in suboptimal use of resources.