Principles of Periodontology

Periodontal diseases are among the most common diseases affecting humans. Dental biofilm is a contributor to the etiology of most periodontal diseases. It is also widely accepted that immunological and inflammatory responses to biofilm components are manifested by signs and symptoms of periodontal disease. The outcome of such interaction is modulated by risk factors (modifiers), either inherent (genetic) or acquired (environmental), significantly affecting the initiation and progression of different periodontal disease phenotypes. While definitive genetic determinants responsible for either susceptibility or resistance to periodontal disease have yet to be identified, many factors affecting the pathogenesis have been described, including smoking, diabetes, obesity, medications, and nutrition. Currently, periodontal diseases are classified based upon clinical disease traits using radiographs and clinical examination. Advances in genomics, molecular biology, and personalized medicine may result in new guidelines for unambiguous disease definition and diagnosis in the future. Recent studies have implied relationships between periodontal diseases and systemic conditions. Answering critical questions regarding host‐parasite interactions in periodontal diseases may provide new insight in the pathogenesis of other biomedical disorders. Therapeutic efforts have focused on the microbial nature of the infection, as active treatment centers on biofilm disruption by non‐surgical mechanical debridement with antimicrobial and sometimes anti‐inflammatory adjuncts. The surgical treatment aims at gaining access to periodontal lesions and correcting unfavorable gingival/osseous contours to achieve a periodontal architecture that will provide for more effective oral hygiene and periodontal maintenance. In addition, advances in tissue engineering have provided innovative means to regenerate/repair periodontal defects, based upon principles of guided tissue regeneration and utilization of growth factors/biologic mediators. To maintain periodontal stability, these treatments need to be supplemented with long‐term maintenance (supportive periodontal therapy) programs

Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a new computerized cemento-enamel junction probe

Background and Objectives: The assessment of clinical attachment level (CAL) represents the "gold standard" for diagnosing and monitoring periodontal disease. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of the newly introduced cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) probe in detecting CAL, using CEJ as a fixed reference point, and to compare the CEJ probe with the Florida stent probe (FSP) as well as with a standard manual probe, University of North Carolina-15 (UNC-15). Materials and Methods: Three examiners recorded the probing attachment level in 384 sites in case group (chronic periodontitis), and in 176 sites, in control group (healthy periodontal status), using the three probes. Subjects included both the sexes and ranged from 35 to 45 years. The experimental design was structured to balance the intra- and inter-examiner consistency at the same site during the two visits. Results: CEJ probe showed higher intra-and inter-examiner consistency over both FSP and UNC-15 in both the case and control groups. Frequency distribution of differences of various magnitudes of repeated measurements ≤1 mm was in the higher range of 86.8% to 87.5% for CEJ probe. The FSP was more reproducible than UNC-15 in detecting relative attachment level (RAL). Interpretation and Conclusion: CEJ automated probe was found to have greatest potential for accuracy and consistency in detecting CAL than FSP and UNC-15. The automated probes appeared to be more reproducible than manual probes