A classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co-sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015. An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri-implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus. This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable. The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table 1).

/pdf/a-new-classification-scheme-for-periodontal-and-peri-implant-160pyrsfm7.pdf

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification.

BACKGROUND

The recently introduced 2017 World Workshop on the classification of periodontitis, incorporating stages and grades of disease, aims to link disease classification with approaches to prevention and treatment, as it describes not only disease severity and extent but also the degree of complexity and an individual's risk. There is, therefore, a need for evidence-based clinical guidelines providing recommendations to treat periodontitis.

AIM

The objective of the current project was to develop a S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the treatment of Stage I-III periodontitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This S3 CPG was developed under the auspices of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), following the methodological guidance of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 15 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific recommendations and consensus, on those recommendations, by leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders.

RESULTS

The S3 CPG approaches the treatment of periodontitis (stages I, II and III) using a pre-established stepwise approach to therapy that, depending on the disease stage, should be incremental, each including different interventions. Consensus was achieved on recommendations covering different interventions, aimed at (a) behavioural changes, supragingival biofilm, gingival inflammation and risk factor control; (b) supra- and sub-gingival instrumentation, with and without adjunctive therapies; (c) different types of periodontal surgical interventions; and (d) the necessary supportive periodontal care to extend benefits over time.

CONCLUSION

This S3 guideline informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers and, indirectly, the public on the available and most effective modalities to treat periodontitis and to maintain a healthy dentition for a lifetime, according to the available evidence at the time of publication.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcpe.13290

Treatment of stage I-III periodontitis-The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline.

The most important development in the epidemiology of periodontitis in the USA during the last decade is the result of improvements in survey methodologies and statistical modeling of periodontitis in adults. Most of these advancements have occurred as the direct outcome of work by the joint initiative known as the Periodontal Disease Surveillance Project by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology that was established in 2006. This report summarizes some of the key findings of this important initiative and its impact on our knowledge of the epidemiology of periodontitis in US adults. This initiative first suggested new periodontitis case definitions for surveillance in 2007 and revised them slightly in 2012. This classification is now regarded as the global standard for periodontitis surveillance and is used worldwide. First, application of such a standard in reporting finally enables results from different researchers in different countries to be meaningfully compared. Second, this initiative tackled the concern that prior national surveys, which used partial-mouth periodontal examination protocols, grossly underestimated the prevalence of periodontitis of potentially more than 50%. Consequently, because previous national surveys significantly underestimated the true prevalence of periodontitis, it is not possible to extrapolate any trend in periodontitis prevalence in the USA over time. Any difference calculated may not represent any actual change in periodontitis prevalence, but rather is a consequence of using different periodontal examination protocols. Finally, the initiative addressed the gap in the need for state and local data on periodontitis prevalence. Through the direct efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology initiative, full-mouth periodontal probing at six sites around all nonthird molar teeth was included in the 6 years of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2009-2014, yielding complete data for 10 683 dentate community-dwelling US adults aged 30 to 79 years. Applying the 2012 periodontitis case definitions to the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys data, the periodontitis prevalence turned out to be much greater than previously estimated, namely affecting 42.2% of the population with 7.8% of people experiencing severe periodontitis. It was also discovered that only the moderate type of periodontitis is driving the increase in periodontitis prevalence with age, not the mild or the severe types whose prevalence do not increase consistently with age, but remain ~ 10%-15% in all age groups of 40 years and older. The greatest risk for having periodontitis of any type was seen in older people, in males, in minority race/ethnic groups, in poorer and less educated groups, and especially in cigarette smokers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Periodontology initiative reported, for the first time, the periodontitis prevalence estimated at both local and state levels, in addition to the national level. Also, this initiative developed and validated in field studies a set of eight items for self-reported periodontitis for use in direct survey estimates of periodontitis prevalence in existing state-based surveys. These items were also included in the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys for validation against clinically determined cases of periodontitis. Another novel result of this initiative is that, for the first time, the geographic distribution of practicing periodontists in relation to the geographic distribution of people with severe periodontitis is illustrated. In summary, the precise periodontitis prevalence and distribution among subgroups in the dentate US noninstitutionalized population aged 30-79 years is better understood because of application of valid periodontitis case definitions to full-mouth periodontal examination, in combination with reliable information on demographic and health-related measures. We now can monitor the trend of periodontitis prevalence over time as well as guide public health preventive and intervention initiatives for the betterment of the health of the adult US population.

/pdf/recent-epidemiologic-trends-in-periodontitis-in-the-usa-37ra9b3qgc.pdf

Recent epidemiologic trends in periodontitis in the USA.

Background Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks). Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). Main results We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Loe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5). Primary objective comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone. Secondary objective comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation. Authors' conclusions Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

/pdf/home-use-of-interdental-cleaning-devices-in-addition-to-2bqv0vns0u.pdf

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

Following a single blind, cross-over and non-randomized design we investigated the effect of 7-day use of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash on the salivary microbiome as well as several saliva and plasma biomarkers in 36 healthy individuals. They rinsed their mouth (for 1 min) twice a day for seven days with a placebo mouthwash and then repeated this protocol with CHX mouthwash for a further seven days. Saliva and blood samples were taken at the end of each treatment to analyse the abundance and diversity of oral bacteria, and pH, lactate, glucose, nitrate and nitrite concentrations. CHX significantly increased the abundance of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria, and reduced the content of Bacteroidetes, TM7, SR1 and Fusobacteria. This shift was associated with a significant decrease in saliva pH and buffering capacity, accompanied by an increase in saliva lactate and glucose levels. Lower saliva and plasma nitrite concentrations were found after using CHX, followed by a trend of increased systolic blood pressure. Overall, this study demonstrates that mouthwash containing CHX is associated with a major shift in the salivary microbiome, leading to more acidic conditions and lower nitrite availability in healthy individuals.

/pdf/effects-of-chlorhexidine-mouthwash-on-the-oral-microbiome-2f4vupg97s.pdf

Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome

Periodontal health is defined by absence of clinically detectable inflammation. There is a biological level of immune surveillance that is consistent with clinical gingival health and homeostasis. Clinical gingival health may be found in a periodontium that is intact, i.e. without clinical attachment loss or bone loss, and on a reduced periodontium in either a non-periodontitis patient (e.g. in patients with some form of gingival recession or following crown lengthening surgery) or in a patient with a history of periodontitis who is currently periodontally stable. Clinical gingival health can be restored following treatment of gingivitis and periodontitis. However, the treated and stable periodontitis patient with current gingival health remains at increased risk of recurrent periodontitis, and accordingly, must be closely monitored. Two broad categories of gingival diseases include non-dental plaque biofilm-induced gingival diseases and dental plaque-induced gingivitis. Non-dental plaque biofilm-induced gingival diseases include a variety of conditions that are not caused by plaque and usually do not resolve following plaque removal. Such lesions may be manifestations of a systemic condition or may be localized to the oral cavity. Dental plaque-induced gingivitis has a variety of clinical signs and symptoms, and both local predisposing factors and systemic modifying factors can affect its extent, severity, and progression. Dental plaque-induced gingivitis may arise on an intact periodontium or on a reduced periodontium in either a non-periodontitis patient or in a currently stable "periodontitis patient" i.e. successfully treated, in whom clinical inflammation has been eliminated (or substantially reduced). A periodontitis patient with gingival inflammation remains a periodontitis patient (Figure 1), and comprehensive risk assessment and management are imperative to ensure early prevention and/or treatment of recurrent/progressive periodontitis. Precision dental medicine defines a patient-centered approach to care, and therefore, creates differences in the way in which a "case" of gingival health or gingivitis is defined for clinical practice as opposed to epidemiologically in population prevalence surveys. Thus, case definitions of gingival health and gingivitis are presented for both purposes. While gingival health and gingivitis have many clinical features, case definitions are primarily predicated on presence or absence of bleeding on probing. Here we classify gingival health and gingival diseases/conditions, along with a summary table of diagnostic features for defining health and gingivitis in various clinical situations.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jcpe.12940

Periodontal health and gingival diseases and conditions on an intact and a reduced periodontium: Consensus report of workgroup 1 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions

Moshe Goldstein

Papers

Periodontal health and gingival diseases and conditions on an intact and a reduced periodontium: Consensus report of workgroup 1 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions