Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Successful 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. METHODS: Highlighted 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. CONCLUSION: Differentiating 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.
Kornman et al. (Tue,) studied this question.