Accuracy of clinical and radiographic recording protocols for diagnosing periodontitis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of periodontal examination at 6-sites full-mouth protocol with clinical and radiographic partial-mouth recording protocols (PRPs) to diagnose periodontitis considering new 2018 case definition. METHODS: Periodontitis was diagnosed by full-mouth assessment of clinical attachment level (CAL) at 6-sites (n = 8529) according to 2018 case definition (standard reference). Three clinical and radiographic PRPs were considered: (i) 4 interproximal sites of all teeth (4-sites, full-mouth); (ii) 6-sites on Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) teeth (6-sites, CPITN teeth); (iii) 4-sites on CPITN teeth (4-sites, CPITN teeth); (iv) radiographic examination on interproximal sites of all teeth (rM-D, full-mouth); and (v) radiographic examination on interproximal sites of CPITN teeth (rM-D, CPITN teeth) using Image J®. Sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV), accuracy, and Κappa (k) were estimated (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The 4-sites, full-mouth protocol showed 100% sensitivity and NPV, 79.87% PPV, low specificity (38.32%), 69.30% accuracy, and poor agreement (k = 0.468). 6-sites and 4-sites CPITN teeth protocols showed 100% PPV and specificity, sensitivity and NPV of >60%, accuracy of >80%, and good agreement (k > 0.65). All clinical PRPs outperformed radiographic protocols. CONCLUSION: Clinical PRPs using index teeth are highly accurate in diagnosing periodontitis considering 2018 case definition.