Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry
OHPD Home Page
OHPD Pre-Print
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
Official Website
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OHPD

 

Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry

Edited by Anton Sculean, Poul Erik Petersen, Avijit Banerjee

ISSN (print) 1602-1622 • ISSN (online) 1757-9996

Publication:

July/August 2019
Volume 17 , Issue 4



Pages: 329–337
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a42505
Back
Share Abstract:

Diagnostic Judgement and Treatment Decisions in Periodontology by Periodontists and General Dental Practitioners in Sweden – A Questionnaire-based Study

Aleksandar Milosavljevic / Andreas Stavropoulos / Kristina Bertl / Bengt Götrick

Purpose: To evaluate if periodontists are coherent in their judgement and treatment decisions of patients with different periodontal conditions, and to compare them with general dental practitioners’ (GDPs) findings.

Materials and Methods: Eighty-six periodontists participated in a questionnaire study based on four patient cases: (a) generalised bone loss but minimal signs of inflammation (well-maintained); (b) generalised bone loss and signs of inflammation (periodontitis); (c) negligible bone loss and minimal signs of inflammation (healthy); and (d) negligible bone loss but with signs of inflammation (gingivitis). Periodontists had the option to judge each patient as healthy or diseased, propose a diagnosis, evaluate treatment needs, propose a treatment plan and assess the prognosis. Comparison between periodontists considered: (a) level of experience and (b) judgement of each patient case as healthy or diseased. Periodontists were additionally compared to a previous sample of GDPs (n = 74).

Results: Periodontists’ response rate was 77%. The diagnostic judgement of the four patient cases showed rather large variation both among periodontists and GDPs. Periodontists’ intention to treat and prognostic assessment depended on their judgement of each patient, as healthy or diseased (p < 0.05). GDPs intended to treat three out of four patient cases (except periodontitis case) more often and were more pessimistic in their prognostic assessment of patients with negligible bone loss (p < 0.05), comparing to periodontists.

Conclusions: Both periodontists and GDPs are defining periodontal health and disease differently, which affects treatment decisions and prognostic assessment. There is a need to define periodontal health and disease more precisely, in order to improve coherence in judgement.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog