2026/07/31 by Emelie Stenberg, Nina Lundegren, Bengt Götrick +2
Dentistry · #Dental Health and Care Utilization #Dental Radiography and Imaging #Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
paper · pdf · doi:10.2340/aos.v85.46574
crossref issued 2026/07/31 · crossref published 2026/07/31 · crossref published-online 2026/07/31 · openalex publication_date 2026/07/31 · crossref created 2026/07/31 · crossref deposited 2026/07/31 · crossref indexed 2026/07/31 · openalex created_date 2026/08/01 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/02
treatment strategies, and prognostic assessments made by dental hygienists in general dentistry, compared with the 1999 classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire comprising five patient cases was administered to dental hygienists in Sweden on two separate occasions. For each case, diagnoses, treatment plans, and prognostic assessments were proposed, first using the 1999 and subsequently the 2018 classification. Cases ranged from no marginal bone loss attributed to periodontitis and few (<10%) bleeding sites to marginal bone loss >30% and generalized inflammation (>30%). Answers from the two occasions were compared. RESULTS: A total of 142 dental hygienists completed both questionnaires. Diagnostic assessments changed significantly in three of the five cases when using the 2018 classification (p < 0.05). In four cases, fewer treatment sessions were recommended, and more optimistic prognostic assessments were made when using the 2018 classification (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The 2018 classification resulted in greater variation in proposed diagnoses in cases without clear attachment loss and was associated with fewer recommended treatment sessions and more optimistic prognostic assessments. However, it appeared at least as effective as the 1999 classification in identifying cases with periodontitis.