AIM: Risk assessment is increasingly important in periodontology. The aim of this article was to propose a new objective method (UniFe) in order to simplify the risk assessment procedures. UniFe was compared with a computer-based risk assessment tool (PAT(R)). METHODS: Risk scores for both UniFe and PAT(R) were calculated for 107 patients, randomly selected among patients seeking care at a specialist periodontal clinic. For UniFe risk calculation, the ''parameter scores'' assigned to smoking status, diabetic status, number of sites with probing depth 5 mm, bleeding on probing score (BoP) and bone loss/age, were added and the sum was referred to a ''risk score'', ranging from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). PAT(R) generated a risk score on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk). RESULTS: The mean UniFe and PAT(R) risk scores were 4.5+/-0.9 and 4.6+/-0.7, respectively. Cohen k-statistics amounted to 0.7, suggesting a good agreement between methods. Difference in risk score between methods was significantly explained by the parameter scores of BoP and bone loss/age (adjusted R2=0.378). CONCLUSION: The comparison between UniFe and PAT(R) demonstrated a good level of agreement between methods in a randomly selected population referred to a periodontal clinic.

Comparison between Two Methods for Periodontal Risk Assessment.

TROMBELLI, Leonardo;FARINA, Roberto;FERRARI, Simona;PASETTI, Paolo;CALURA, Giorgio
2009

Abstract

AIM: Risk assessment is increasingly important in periodontology. The aim of this article was to propose a new objective method (UniFe) in order to simplify the risk assessment procedures. UniFe was compared with a computer-based risk assessment tool (PAT(R)). METHODS: Risk scores for both UniFe and PAT(R) were calculated for 107 patients, randomly selected among patients seeking care at a specialist periodontal clinic. For UniFe risk calculation, the ''parameter scores'' assigned to smoking status, diabetic status, number of sites with probing depth 5 mm, bleeding on probing score (BoP) and bone loss/age, were added and the sum was referred to a ''risk score'', ranging from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). PAT(R) generated a risk score on a scale from 1 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk). RESULTS: The mean UniFe and PAT(R) risk scores were 4.5+/-0.9 and 4.6+/-0.7, respectively. Cohen k-statistics amounted to 0.7, suggesting a good agreement between methods. Difference in risk score between methods was significantly explained by the parameter scores of BoP and bone loss/age (adjusted R2=0.378). CONCLUSION: The comparison between UniFe and PAT(R) demonstrated a good level of agreement between methods in a randomly selected population referred to a periodontal clinic.
Trombelli, Leonardo; Farina, Roberto; Ferrari, Simona; Pasetti, Paolo; Calura, Giorgio
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/1406452
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 27
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact