Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The fundamental concepts of measuring periodontal diseases and the interpretation of such information as an historical record of disease, rather than disease activity, emphasises the need for improved diagnostic and prognostic tests. Criteria for an indicator of disease activity were suggested and an index fulfilling these should allow sites to be categorised as "active", quiescent or healing, and enable one to predict the risk of future disease activity. The ability of current measurements and indices, routinely used during clinical assessments of periodontal diseases, to fulfill the suggested criteria was considered and rejected in all cases. It is concluded that clinical parameters are only capable of identifying disease retrospectively, indicating the need for longitudinal, rather than cross-sectional studies in the search for clinical and laboratory markers of disease activity and susceptibility.
Griffiths et al. (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: