Periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning - An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system.

OBJECTIVES Substantial variations are seen among clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment planning of periodontal diseases. Accurate diagnosis and treatment planning are fundamental requirements for effective outcome-based patient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the understanding of the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology 2017 periodontal disease classifications in diagnoses and treatment plans across four study groups. METHODS The study recruited at least 20 participants in each of the four study groups. These included 1) Periodontal faculty and residents at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD-PF) 2) IUSD general practice faculty (IUSD-GPF), 3) private practice periodontists (PPP), and 4) general practitioners (GP). The participants were provided with 10 HIPPA de-identified case records and a link to a survey. The survey comprised five demographic questions and two questions on diagnosis and treatment plan for each case along with a fixed list of responses. The responses were then compared against gold standards that were determined by a group of three board-certified periodontists. RESULTS Overall, for diagnostic questions, GP (69%) were correct significantly less often than IUSD-PF (86%, p < 0.001), IUSD-GPF (79%, p = 0.002), and PPP (80%, p = 0.001). No significant differences (p > 0.05) in the overall correct treatment plan responses were found among the four groups (IUSD-PF: 69%, IUSD-GPF: 62%, PPP: 68%, and GP: 60%). The multi-rater kappas for with-in-group agreement on overall diagnosis ranged from 0.36 (GP) to 0.55 (IUSD-PF) and on overall treatment plan ranged from 0.32 (IUSD-GPF) to 0.42 (IUSD-PF). Overall agreement for diagnosis and treatment plans among the four groups was relatively low and none of the groups were statistically different from each other (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION Regular participation in calibration sessions may lead to more accurate adoption of the 2017 periodontal classification and thereby help provide consistent diagnosis and treatment.

[1]  M. Kaur,et al.  The new periodontal disease classification: Level of agreement on diagnoses and treatment planning at various dental education levels. , 2021, Journal of dental education.

[2]  C. Tomasi,et al.  The staging and grading system in defining periodontitis cases: consistency and accuracy among periodontal experts, general dentists and undergraduate students. , 2020, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[3]  T. Dietrich,et al.  Periodontal diagnosis in the context of the 2017 classification system of periodontal diseases and conditions – implementation in clinical practice , 2019, BDJ.

[4]  P. Papapanou,et al.  A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification , 2018, Journal of periodontology.

[5]  J. Slots.  Periodontitis: facts, fallacies and the future. , 2017, Periodontology 2000.

[6]  M. McAndrew.  Faculty Calibration: Much Ado About Something. , 2016, Journal of dental education.

[7]  G. Eckert,et al.  Consensus training: an effective tool to minimize variations in periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among dental faculty and students. , 2013, Journal of dental education.

[8]  G. Armitage,et al.  Comparison of the clinical features of chronic and aggressive periodontitis. , 2010, Periodontology 2000.

[9]  G. Maupomé,et al.  Diagnostic thinking and information used in clinical decision-making: a qualitative study of expert and student dental clinicians , 2010, BMC oral health.

[10]  J Highfield,et al.  Diagnosis and classification of periodontal disease. , 2009, Australian dental journal.

[11]  Remy Rikers,et al.  Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine. , 2007, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[12]  David P Sarment,et al.  Variation in periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among clinical instructors. , 2005, Journal of dental education.

[13]  B. Pihlstrom,et al.  Periodontal risk assessment, diagnosis and treatment planning. , 2001, Periodontology 2000.

[14]  F. Courts.  Standardization and calibration in the evaluation of clinical performance. , 1997, Journal of dental education.

[15]  G. Eckert,et al.  Assessment of the calibration of periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning among dental students at three dental schools. , 2015, Journal of dental education.