| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bruckmann, Corinna, et al.
(författare)
-
Diabetes : why should the dental team bother?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. - : Quintessence. - 1602-1622 .- 1757-9996. ; 16:6, s. 481-481
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Kloukos, Dimitrios, et al.
(författare)
-
Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors of Orthodontic Patients with Ultrasound and Cone-beam CT : A Cross-sectional Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. - : Quintessence. - 1602-1622 .- 1757-9996. ; 19:1, s. 263-270
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Milosavljevic, Aleksandar, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessment of Prognosis and Periodontal Treatment Goals Among General Dental Practitioners and Dental Hygienists
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. - : Quintessence. - 1602-1622 .- 1757-9996. ; 14:5, s. 433-441
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Milosavljevic, Aleksandar, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic Judgement and Treatment Decisions in Periodontology by Periodontists and General Dental Practitioners in Sweden : A Questionnaire-based Study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. - : Quintessence. - 1602-1622 .- 1757-9996. ; 17:4, s. 329-337
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
