Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the 2017 classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: presentation of a patient with periodontitis localised to the molar teeth.

The objective of this case report is to illustrate the diagnosis and classification of periodontitis, according to the 2017 classification system, as recommended in the British Society of Periodontology (BSP) implementation plan. A 37-year-old female was diagnosed with periodontitis (molar-incisor pattern), stage III, grade C, currently unstable. Several issues pertinent to the diagnosis of localised forms of periodontitis in young patients are discussed in relation to the current and previous classification systems. Periodontitis can be limited to a few sites and this case highlights the importance of the careful application of the basic periodontal examination (BPE).

Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the 2017 classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: Presentation of a middle-aged patient with localised periodontitis.

The objective of this case report is to illustrate the diagnosis and classification of periodontitis according to the 2017 classification system as recommended in the British Society of Periodontology (BSP) implementation plan. We describe a case of a patient who was diagnosed with 'localised periodontitis; stage II, grade B; currently unstable'. The present case report presents an example for the application of the new classification system and illustrates how the new classification system captures disease severity, extent and disease susceptibility by staging and grading periodontitis.

Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the 2017 classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions - implementation in clinical practice.

The 2017 World Workshop Classification system for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions was developed in order to accommodate advances in knowledge derived from both biological and clinical research, that have emerged since the 1999 International Classification of Periodontal Diseases. Importantly, it defines clinical health for the first time, and distinguishes an intact and a reduced periodontium throughout. The term 'aggressive periodontitis' was removed, creating a staging and grading system for periodontitis that is based primarily upon attachment and bone loss and classifies the disease into four stages based on severity (I, II, III or IV) and three grades based on disease susceptibility (A, B or C). The British Society of Periodontology (BSP) convened an implementation group to develop guidance on how the new classification system should be implemented in clinical practice. A particular focus was to describe how the new classification system integrates with established diagnostic parameters and pathways, such as the basic periodontal examination (BPE). This implementation plan focuses on clinical practice; for research, readers are advised to follow the international classification system. In this paper we describe a diagnostic pathway for plaque-induced periodontal diseases that is consistent with established guidance and accommodates the novel 2017 classification system, as recommended by the BSP implementation group. Subsequent case reports will provide examples of the application of this guidance in clinical practice.

Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the BSP implementation plan for the 2017 classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions: presentation of a pair of young siblings with periodontitis.

The objective of this case report is to illustrate the diagnosis and classification of periodontitis according to the 2017 classification system as recommended in the British Society of Periodontology (BSP) implementation plan. We describe two cases in the form of a pair of siblings, who developed periodontitis very early in life. A 19-year-old female was diagnosed with 'generalised periodontitis; stage III/grade C; currently unstable'. Her 14-year-old sister was diagnosed with 'localised periodontitis; stage II, grade C; currently unstable'. The present case report presents an example for the application of the new classification system and illustrates the importance of a periodontal check for children and adolescents and/or their relatives.

Oral health of elite athletes and association with performance: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically review the epidemiology of oral disease and trauma in the elite athlete population and to investigate the impact of oral health on sporting performance. METHODS: Authors searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to October 2013), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to October 2013), EBSCO SPORTDiscus (up to October 2013) and OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu). No date or language restrictions were applied. Papers were included if they evaluated the oral health of professional athletes. The methodological quality of papers was evaluated using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The literature search led to 9858 potentially relevant citations. Following a set of predefined exclusion criteria, 34 studies remained. Twenty-six studies reported on dental trauma, which ranged in prevalence from 14% to 47% varying by sport and country. Sixteen studies considered the oral health of athletes and reported high prevalence of oral diseases: dental caries 15-75%, dental erosion 36-85%, periodontal disease 15%. In four studies, a range between 5% and 18% of athletes reported negative impact of oral health or trauma on performance. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the review, oral health of athletes is poor. We hypothesise that poor oral health associates with self-reported performance; however, this needs to be tested. Further studies on representative samples of athletes are needed to assess the size of the problem of poor oral health as well as to investigate the possible impact on performance using objective measures of performance.

Consensus statement: Oral health and elite sport performance.

While the research base is limited, studies have consistently reported poor oral health in elite athletes since the first report from the 1968 Olympic Games. The finding is consistent both across selected samples attending dental clinics at major competitions and more representative sampling of teams and has led to calls from the International Olympic Committee for more accurate data on oral health. Poor oral health is an important issue directly as it can cause pain, negative effects on appearance and psychosocial effects on confidence and quality of life and may have long-term consequences for treatment burden. Self-reported evidence also suggests an impact on training and performance of athletes. There are many potential challenges to the oral health of athletes including nutritional, oral dehydration, exercise-induced immune suppression, lack of awareness, negative health behaviours and lack of prioritisation. However, in theory, oral diseases are preventable by simple interventions with good evidence of efficacy. The consensus statement aims to raise awareness of the issues of oral health in elite sport and recommends strategies for prevention and health promotion in addition to future research strategies.

Involving the public in research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is a rapidly developing initiative across biomedicine. It recognises that in addition to being the subjects of research, patients, the public and other users have an important contribution to make to the development, quality and relevance of research and to be advocates for oral health research. These aspects are under increasing scrutiny in view of the financial squeeze on public funding and the ethical obligation of the research team to carry out the highest quality activity. This paper is an introduction to involving people in research and provides basic guidance on how to get started.

Oral health and impact on performance of athletes participating in the London 2012 Olympic Games: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Oral health is important both for well-being and successful elite sporting performance. Reports from Olympic Games have found significant treatment needs; however, few studies have examined oral health directly. The aim of this study was to evaluate oral health, the determinants of oral health and the effect of oral health on well-being, training and performance of athletes participating in the London 2012 Games. METHODS: Cross-sectional study at the dental clinic within the Polyclinic in the athletes' village. Following informed consent, a standardised history, clinical examination and brief questionnaire were conducted. RESULTS: 302 athletes from 25 sports were recruited with data available for 278. The majority of athletes were from Africa, the Americas and Europe. Overall, the results demonstrated high levels of poor oral health including dental caries (55% athletes), dental erosion (45% athletes) and periodontal disease (gingivitis 76% athletes, periodontitis 15% athletes). More than 40% of athletes were 'bothered' by their oral health with 28% reporting an impact on quality of life and 18% on training and performance. Nearly half of the participants had not undergone a dental examination or hygiene care in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: The oral health of athletes attending the dental clinic of the London 2012 Games was poor with a resulting substantial negative impact on well-being, training and performance. As oral health is an important element of overall health and well-being, health promotion and disease prevention interventions are urgently required to optimise athletic performance.

Risk management in clinical practice. Part 10. Periodontology.

A sizeable proportion of patients in clinical practice will have some form of periodontal disease and most of these patients can be well managed in primary care. Unfortunately, dento-legal claims regarding inappropriate periodontal care are increasing rapidly and are now one of the most common reasons for litigation in dentistry. In this paper we will look at aspects of contemporary management of periodontal disease in clinical practice and offer guidance for examination, management and referral.

Evidence-based care and the curriculum.

An evidence-based (EB) approach has been a significant driver in reforming healthcare over the past two decades. This change has extended across a broad range of health professions, including oral healthcare. A key element in achieving an EB approach to oral healthcare is educating our practitioners, both current and future. This involves providing opportunities integrated within simulated and actual clinical settings for practitioners to learn and apply the principles and processes of evidence-based oral healthcare (EBOHC). Therefore, the focus of this discussion will be on ways in which EBOHC and associated research activities can be implemented into curricula, with the aim of improving patient care. This paper will initially define the scope of EBOHC and research, what these involve, why they are important, and issues that we need to manage when implementing EBOHC. This will be followed by a discussion of factors that enable successful implementation of EBOHC and research into curricula. The paper concludes with suggestions on the future of EBOHC and research in curricula. Key recommendations related to curricula include strengthening of the culture of a scientific approach to education and oral healthcare provision; complete integration of EBOHC into the curriculum at all levels; and faculty development to implement EBOHC based on their needs and evidence of effective approaches. Key recommendations to support implementation and maintenance of EBOHC include recognition and funding for high-quality systematic reviews and development of associated methodologies relevant for global environments; building global capacity of EBOHC researchers; research into improving translation of effective interventions into education and healthcare practice, including patient-reported outcomes, safety and harms, understanding and incorporation of patient values into EB decision-making, economic evaluation research specific to oral healthcare and effective methods for changing practitioner (faculty) behaviours; and extend access to synthesized research in 'user friendly' formats and languages tailored to meet users' needs. Realizing these recommendations may help to improve access to effective healthcare as a basic human right.

Full-mouth disinfection for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of full-mouth disinfection or full-mouth scaling compared to conventional quadrant scaling for periodontitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Data sources included electronic databases, handsearched journals and contact with experts. The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: December 2006: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials were selected with at least 3 months follow up comparing full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with (FMD) or without (FMS) the adjunctive use of an antiseptic (chlorhexidine) with conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed within the data extraction form, mainly focusing on: method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blindness of examiners and completeness of follow up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple review authors. The primary outcome measure was tooth loss, secondary outcomes were reduction of probing depth, bleeding on probing and gain in probing attachment. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 216 abstracts. Review of these abstracts resulted in 12 publications for detailed review. Finally, seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which met the criteria for eligibility were independently selected by two review authors. None of the studies included reported on tooth loss. All treatment modalities led to significant improvements in clinical parameters after a follow up of at least 3 months. For the secondary outcome, reduction in probing depth, the mean difference between FMD and control was 0.53 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.77) in moderately deep pockets of single rooted teeth and for gain in probing attachment 0.33 mm (95% CI 0.04 to 0.62) in moderately deep single and multirooted teeth. Comparing FMD and FMS the mean difference in one study for gain in probing attachment amounted to 0.74 mm in favour of FMS (95% CI 0.17 to 1.31) for deep pockets in multirooted teeth, while another study reported a mean difference for reduction in bleeding on probing of 18% in favour of FMD (95% CI -33.74 to -2.26) for deep pockets of single rooted teeth. No significant differences were observed for any of the outcome measures, when comparing FMS and control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic periodontitis in moderately deep pockets slightly more favourable outcomes for pocket reduction and gain in probing attachment were found following FMD compared to control. However, these additional improvements were only modest and there was only a very limited number of studies available for comparison, thus limiting general conclusions about the clinical benefit of full-mouth disinfection.

Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatment of destructive periodontal (gum) disease arrests the disease but does not usually regain the bone support or connective tissue lost in the disease process. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a surgical procedure that specifically aims to regenerate the periodontal tissues when the disease is advanced and could overcome some of the limitations of conventional therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of GTR in the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects measured against conventional surgery (open flap debridement (OFD)) and factors affecting outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted an electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2004. Handsearching included Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles up to April 2004. In addition, we contacted experts/groups/companies involved in surgical research to find other trials or unpublished material or to clarify ambiguous or missing data and posted requests for data on two periodontal electronic discussion groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 months duration comparing guided tissue regeneration (with or without graft materials) with open flap debridement for the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects. Furcation involvements and studies specifically treating aggressive periodontitis were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of possible studies and data extraction was conducted independently. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components and agreement determined by Kappa scores. Methodological quality was used in sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the conclusions. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as mean differences (MD and 95% CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR and 95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes calculated using random-effects models. Any heterogeneity was investigated. The primary outcome measure was change in clinical attachment. MAIN RESULTS: The search produced 626 titles, of these 596 were clearly not relevant to the review. The full text of 32 studies of possible relevance was obtained and 15 studies were excluded. Therefore 17 RCTs were included in this review, 16 studies testing GTR alone and two testing GTR+bone substitutes (one study had both test treatment arms).No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow up was not complete. For attachment level change, the mean difference between GTR and OFD was 1.22 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.80 to 1.64, chi squared for heterogeneity 69.1 (df = 15), P < 0.001, I(2) = 78%) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.61, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.01 (df = 1), P = 0.91). GTR showed a significant benefit when comparing the numbers of sites failing to gain 2 mm attachment with risk ratio 0.54 (95% CI Random Effects: 0.31 to 0.96, chi squared for heterogeneity 8.9 (df = 5), P = 0.11). The number needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 33), based on an incidence of 28% of sites in the control group failing to gain 2 mm or more of attachment. For baseline incidences in the range of the control groups of 3% and 55% the NNTs are 71 and 4. Probing depth reduction was greater for GTR than OFD: 1.21 mm (95% CI 0.53 to 1.88, chi squared for heterogeneity 62.9 (df = 10), P < 0.001, I(2) = 84%) or GTR + bone substitutes, weighted mean difference 1.24 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.03 (df = 1), P = 0.85). For gingival recession, a statistically significant difference between GTR and open flap debridement controls was evident (mean difference 0.26 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.08, 0.43, chi squared for heterogeneity 2.7 (df = 8), P = 0.95), with a greater change in recession from baseline for the control group. Regarding hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry, a statistically significant greater gain was found for GTR compared with open flap debridement. This amounted to a weighted mean difference of 1.39 mm (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.85 (df = 2), P = 0.65). For GTR + bone substitutes the difference was greater, with mean difference 3.37 mm (95% CI 3.14 to 3.61). Adverse effects were generally minor although with an increased treatment time for GTR. Exposure of the barrier membrane was frequently reported with a lack of evidence of an effect on healing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting. There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Introduction to cumulative meta-analysis in dentistry: lessons learned from undertaking a cumulative meta-analysis in periodontology.

Improving health and well-being from the consideration of isolated studies is problematic. Systematic reviews have been developed to address this problem and may include a quantitative data synthesis in the form of a meta-analysis, or a cumulative meta-analysis. The value of systematic reviews depends greatly on the availability and quality of the results of primary research. The objective of the current project was to demonstrate the technique of cumulative meta-analysis in dentistry using data from a previously published systematic review. The process highlights an issue that some trials could not be synthesized due to the lack of reporting of measures of variation. This represents a potential source of bias. Investigators are encouraged to consider their trials as part of an information continuum and to report sufficient detail to permit the trials' incorporation into subsequent syntheses.

Quality of RCTs in periodontology--a systematic review.

Randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinding, and patient follow-up are key quality components of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this study was to assess the quality of RCTs in periodontology using these evidence-based components. Following a detailed search, screening and quality assessments of RCTs were conducted in duplicate and independently. The results showed that although 91% of trials were described as randomised, adequate methods for randomization and allocation concealment were found in 17% and 7% of studies, respectively. Blinding was adequate for the caregiver in 17% and for the examiner in 55% of studies. A clear accounting of all participants was present in 56% of reports. This rigorous systematic review revealed that the quality of RCTs in periodontology, judged by their publications, frequently does not meet recommended standards. If this quality is reflected in actual study conduct, fundamental errors could have a significant impact on the outcomes of these trials.

A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement vs non-surgical debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of surgical vs. non-surgical therapy for the treatment of chronic periodontal disease. METHODS: A search was conducted for randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontal disease. Data sources included the National Library of Medicine computerised bibliographic database MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) Specialist Trials Register. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple reviewers (L.H., F.H., L.T.). The primary outcome measures evaluated were gain in clinical attachment level (CAL) and reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD). RESULTS: The search provided 589 abstracts of which six randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis evaluation of these studies indicated that 12 months following treatment, surgical therapy resulted in 0.6 mm more PPD reduction (WMD 0.58 mm; 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) and 0.2 mm more CAL gain (WMD 0.19 mm; 95% CI 0.04, 0.35) than non-surgical therapy in deep pockets (>6 mm). In 4-6 mm pockets scaling and root planing resulted in 0.4 mm more attachment gain (WMD -0.37 mm; 95% CI -0.49, -0.26) and 0.4 mm less probing depth reduction (WMD 0.35 mm; 95% CI 0.23, 0.47) than surgical therapy. In shallow pockets (1-3 mm) non-surgical therapy resulted in 0.5 mm less attachment loss (WMD -0.51 mm; 95% CI -0.74, -0.29) than surgical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Both scaling and root planing alone and scaling and root planing combined with flap procedure are effective methods for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in terms of attachment level gain and reduction in gingival inflammation. In the treatment of deep pockets open flap debridement results in greater PPD reduction and clinical attachment gain.

Systemic and local antimicrobial use in periodontal therapy in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate antimicrobial use during periodontal therapy in dental practice in England & Wales. METHOD: This was a postal questionnaire survey of 800 dentists, 400 general dental practitioners (GDP) in National Health Service practice and 400 members of the British Society of Periodontology (Periodontal Society) primarily in dental practice. We designed and piloted a questionnaire to evaluate both systemic and local antibiotic use with periodontal therapy as well as factors affecting their prescription. In addition, we also investigated the potential use of antibiotic sensitivity testing, since this has been recommended prior to prescribing antibiotics. Two follow-up mailings were used to encourage non-responders. RESULTS: The useable return rate for the questionnaires was 587/800 (73%). Systemic antibiotics were used by 7.4% Periodontal Society members and 18.4% GDP for untreated adult periodontitis patients (p<0.001). Antimicrobials were prescribed more frequently by Periodontal Society members in early onset (52.7%) and refractory periodontitis patients (49.6%), and this was highly statistically significantly greater usage than GDP (p<0.001). Regarding local antimicrobials, usage for untreated adult periodontitis was Periodontal Society 8.9% and GDP 5.4%. Higher usage of local antimicrobials was found both for the treatment of recurrent pocketing in adult periodontitis (Periodontal Society 26.3%, GDP 14.8%, p<0.014) and refractory periodontitis (Periodontal Society 30.8%, GDP 15.2%, p<0.001). As reasons for using local antimicrobials, more than 80% of all respondents stated superiority over root debridement alone. Barriers to use included cost, no perceived need and lack of supporting research data. The percentage of responders considering diagnostic microbiology either theoretically or at a cost of pound 60 were by group, Periodontal Society 83% & 70.4% and GDP 76% & 51.2%. 33% of Periodontal Society members and 3.8% of GDP spent at least 45 min per quadrant on root planing and Periodontal Society members had a greater exposure to lectures on both systemic and local drug therapy compared with GDP (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic antimicrobial use was infrequent for adult periodontitis and generally in line with current recommendations for other disease types. Whilst local antimicrobial therapy for periodontitis was not widespread, a substantial minority of dentists use this form of therapy and most believe that it is more effective than root debridement alone.