New algorithm/tool used to achieve the periodontal risk assessment, diagnosis and prognosis (GF-PeDRA©): A clinical study with 221 patients
Year: 2025
Type: article
Study design: Observational Study
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Periodontal diagnosis and risk assessment are extremely important to assess the individual likelihood of developing periodontal disease or experiencing its progression. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to introduce and validate a new algorithm through providing the periodontal/ peri-implant diagnosis (comparing the one by the professionals vs. the automated tool), risk assessment and prognosis, and to establish cut-off limits with a new scoring system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: GF-PeDRA© has 18 parameters to be assessed, achieving an octadecagon picture. The parameters are as follows: the probing depth (PD); the number of interproximal sites with bone loss; clinical attachment loss (CAL); radiographic bone loss (RBL); bleeding on probing (BoP); the bone loss pattern; tooth loss; the evidence of progression; the need for complex rehabilitation; the patient's age; biofilm accumulation; smoking; diabetes; extension and distribution; peri-implant disease; other systemic conditions; furcation involvement; and necrotizing lesions. The new scoring system, GF-PeDRA©, is based on the percentage of the octadecagon area obtained: for areas ≥0% and ≤9%, the prognosis is good; ≥10% and ≤24%, fair; ≥25% and ≤37%, poor; ≥38% and ≤49%, questionable; and ≥50%, hopeless. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were included, with 34 (15.38%) smokers and 28 (12.67%) diabetics. The evaluators individually achieved the diagnosis (κ = 0.83); therefore, 37 out of 221 cases were revised, and the final clinical diagnosis was established. Afterward, all information was inserted into GF-PeDRA© to obtain an automated diagnosis. Comparing them (the professionals vs. GF-PeDRA©), the total agreement level was achieved (κ = 1.0). The average GF-PeDRA© score was 28.64%, with a median (Me) of 32.2%. Forty-eight (21.72%) patients were classified as having a good prognosis for periodontal treatment, 43 (19.46%) had a fair prognosis, 43 (19.46%) had a poor prognosis, 68 (30.77%) had a questionable prognosis, and 19 (8.60%) had a hopeless prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: GF-PeDRA© proved to be a helpful tool in diagnosing, and providing risk assessment and prognosis. New clinical studies must be conducted to validate the presented GF-PeDRA© scoring system.
Source: Dental and Medical Problems
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/199583
Authors: Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira Fernandes, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes
Institution: A.T. Still University
Language: English
Subfield: Periodontics
Field: Dentistry
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4416202283