Clinical application of the new classification of periodontal diseases: Ground rules, clarifications and “gray zones”

BackgroundSuccessful dissemination of the new classification of periodontitis is facilitated by emphasis on the basic ground rules, clarification of ambiguities, and identification of “gray zones” where thoughtful application of the guidelines by an informed, experienced clinician is paramount to arrive at a correct Stage and Grade.MethodsHighlighted ground rules are (1) Stage is a patient‐based, not a tooth‐based concept, therefore, a single Stage is assigned per patient; (2) Stage can shift upward over time, if the periodontal status deteriorates, but the initially assigned Stage is retained even after improvement post‐therapy; (3) the complexity factors that determine Stage must be evaluated collectively, not in isolation, to arrive at a clinically meaningful assessment; (4) a single Grade is assigned to a patient based on a deliberate evaluation of the “biological fabric” of the case, in terms of history of/risk for further progression, interplay of risk factors, and the two‐way effects of periodontitis or its treatment on general health; (v) shift of Grade over time is possible towards either direction, after thorough, collective, evaluation of changes in the above parameters. Exemplified gray zones include a radiographically intact patient with minimal attachment loss in older age; presence of “frank” periodontitis affecting a single tooth; and assessment of factors that do/do not lead to increased complexity of therapy.ConclusionDifferentiating between Stage I/II versus Stage III/IV periodontitis is relatively uncomplicated; further distinction between Stages and correct assignment of Grade requires nuanced, thorough interpretation of a broad array of findings by a knowledgeable clinician.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154677/1/jper10481.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154677/2/jper10481_am.pd

Guest Editorial: Clarifications on the use of the new classification of periodontitis

This editorial provides clarifications on the application of the Stage and Grade classification of periodontitis. In particular it describes: (1) how to apply the extent criterion to the defined Stage of the disease; and (2) how to calculate tooth loss because of periodontitis in Stage III and IV cases presenting with evidently hopeless (irrational to treat) teeth with a clinical definition of such teeth.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155462/1/jcpe13286_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155462/2/jcpe13286.pd

Clinical and Serologic Markers of Periodontal Infection and Chronic Kidney Disease

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141492/1/jper1670.pd

Evaluating clinical periodontal measures as surrogates for bacterial exposure: The Oral Infections and Vascular Disease Epidemiology Study (INVEST)

Epidemiologic studies of periodontal infection as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease often use clinical periodontal measures as a surrogate for the underlying bacterial exposure of interest. There are currently no methodological studies evaluating which clinical periodontal measures best reflect the levels of subgingival bacterial colonization in population-based settings. We investigated the characteristics of clinical periodontal definitions that were most representative of exposure to bacterial species that are believed to be either markers, or themselves etiologic, of periodontal disease. 706 men and women aged ≥ 55 years, residing in northern Manhattan were enrolled. Using DNA-DNA checkerboard hybridization in subgingival biofilms, standardized values for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia were averaged within mouth and summed to define "bacterial burden". Correlations of bacterial burden with clinical periodontal constructs defined by the severity and extent of attachment loss (AL), pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed. Clinical periodontal constructs demonstrating the highest correlations with bacterial burden were: i) percent of sites with BOP (r = 0.62); ii) percent of sites with PD ≥ 3 mm (r = 0.61); and iii) number of sites with BOP (r = 0.59). Increasing PD or AL severity thresholds consistently attenuated correlations, i.e., the correlation of bacterial burden with the percent of sites with PD ≥ 8 mm was only r = 0.16. Clinical exposure definitions of periodontal disease should incorporate relatively shallow pockets to best reflect whole mouth exposure to bacterial burden

Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases-The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of stages I-IV periodontitis provided evidence-based recommendations for treating periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Peri-implant diseases were also re-defined in the 2018 classification. It is well established that both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are highly prevalent. In addition, peri-implantitis is particularly challenging to manage and is accompanied by significant morbidity. AIM To develop an S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases, focusing on the implementation of interdisciplinary approaches required to prevent the development of peri-implant diseases or their recurrence, and to treat/rehabilitate patients with dental implants following the development of peri-implant diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS This S3 level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology, following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, formulation of specific recommendations, and a structured consensus process involving leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. RESULTS The S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases culminated in the recommendation for implementation of various different interventions before, during and after implant placement/loading. Prevention of peri-implant diseases should commence when dental implants are planned, surgically placed and prosthetically loaded. Once the implants are loaded and in function, a supportive peri-implant care programme should be structured, including periodical assessment of peri-implant tissue health. If peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis are detected, appropriate treatments for their management must be rendered. CONCLUSION The present S3 level CPG informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers and, indirectly, the public on the available and most effective modalities to maintain healthy peri-implant tissues, and to manage peri-implant diseases, according to the available evidence at the time of publication

The Severity of Human Peri-Implantitis Lesions Correlates with the Level of Submucosal Microbial Dysbiosis

AIM To cross-sectionally analyse the submucosal microbiome of peri-implantitis (PI) lesions at different severity levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS Microbial signatures of 45 submucosal plaque samples from untreated PI lesions obtained from 30 non-smoking, systemically healthy subjects were assessed by 16s sequencing. Linear mixed models were used to identify taxa with differential abundance by probing depth, after correction for age, gender, and multiple samples per subject. Network analyses were performed to identify groups of taxa with mutual occurrence or exclusion. Subsequently, the effects of peri-implant probing depth on submucosal microbial dysbiosis were calculated using the microbial dysbiosis index. RESULTS In total, we identified 337 different taxa in the submucosal microbiome of PI. Total abundance of 12 taxa correlated significantly with increasing probing depth; a significant relationship with lower probing depth was found for 16 taxa. Network analysis identified two mutually exclusive complexes associated with shallow pockets and deeper pockets, respectively. Deeper peri-implant pockets were associated with significantly increased dysbiosis. CONCLUSION Increases in peri-implant pocket depth are associated with substantial changes in the submucosal microbiome and increasing levels of dysbiosis

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table ).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144667/1/jcpe12935.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144667/2/jcpe12935_am.pd

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table 1).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144587/1/jper10117_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144587/2/jper10117.pd

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report

AimLack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence‐based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID‐COSM).Materials and MethodsThis Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)‐registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals.ResultsThe systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre‐specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri‐implant tissue health status, intervention‐related adverse events, complication‐free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft‐tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri‐implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient‐reported outcomes identified by the focus groups).ConclusionsThe ID‐COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence‐informed implant dentistry and quality of care