Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 563–569 | Cite as

Validity of self-reported periodontal questions in a New Zealand cohort

  • L. A. Foster Page
  • W. M. Thomson
  • J. M. Broadbent
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to assess the validity of four self-reported questions for measuring periodontitis in a birth cohort.

Methods

Full-mouth periodontal examinations (three sites/tooth) were undertaken at age 38 in a complete birth cohort born in 1972/1973 in New Zealand. Four self-reported periodontal screening questions were included (“Do you think you have gum disease”; “Has a dental professional ever told you that you have lost bone around your teeth”; “Have you ever had scaling, root planing, surgery, or other treatment for gum disease” and “Have you ever had any teeth that have become loose by themselves without some injury”), and the sensitivity and specificity of those self-reported items were calculated for individual questions and using a multivariable binary logistic regression model. Generalised linear models were used to compare relative risks for periodontitis and smoking, using the (a) clinical measures and (b) self-reported questions.

Results

Among the 895 who had periodontal examinations, the prevalence of periodontitis was 43.7, 22.8 and 12.0 %, respectively, for one or more sites with ≥4, ≥5 and ≥6 mm clinical attachment loss (AL). The specificity of the four self-reported questions was high (82–94 %), but the sensitivity was low for all, except the question: “Do you think you have gum disease”. The four questions’ highest combined sensitivity + specificity value was 1.33 for one or more sites with ≥4 mm AL, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve being greatest for one or more sites with ≥6 mm AL, at 0.84. For the smoking–periodontitis association, the estimates of relative risk for periodontitis among smokers were as follows: (a) 1.81, 2.88 and 5.79, respectively, clinically determined to have one or more sites with ≥4, ≥5 and ≥6 mm AL and (b) 2.19, 2.17, 1.23 and 1.89, respectively, for the four self-reported questions.

Conclusion

The four self-reported periodontal screening questions performed adequately in identifying clinically determined periodontal disease, and they showed moderate validity when used together as a set. However, the strength of the association between smoking and periodontitis was underestimated when they were used instead of clinically determined periodontal disease.

Clinical relevance

These findings suggest that clinical examinations remain to be the desired approach for periodontal surveys, but where resource constraints preclude those, self-reported methods can provide useful information; after all, some periodontal information is better than none at all.

Keywords

Self-reported Screening questions Periodontitis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our study members for their continuing participation in the Dunedin Study and study founder, Dr. Phil Silva, and current director, Professor Richie Poulton. The age-26 dental data collection was supported by the New Zealand Dental Association Research Foundation and the University of Otago. The age-32 dental data collection was supported by Grant R01 DE-015260-01A1 from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892, USA, and a programme grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council (NZ HRC). The age-38 data collection was supported by a programme grant from the NZ HRC. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit is supported by the NZ HRC.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The research involves humans and has ethical approval from the Lower South Regional Ethics Committee LRS/10/03/012.

References

  1. 1.
    Genco RJ, Borgnakke WS (2013) Risk factors for periodontal disease. Periodontol 2000(62):59–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergstrom J (2003) Tobacco smoking and risk for periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 30:107–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blicher B, Joshipura K, Eke P (2005) Validation of self-reported periodontal disease: a systematic review. J Dent Res 84:881–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietrich T, Stosch U, Dietrich D, Schamberger D, Bernimoulin JP, Joshipura K (2005) The accuracy of individual self-reported items to determine periodontal disease history. Eur J Oral Sci 113:135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eke PI (2005) Public health implications of periodontal infections in adults: conference proceedings. J Public Health Dent 65:56–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eke PI (2009) Developing new case definitions for monitoring the nation’s periodontal health. Dent Abstr 54:63–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietrich T, Stosch U, Dietrich D, Kaiser W, Bernimoulin JP, Joshipura K (2007) Prediction of periodontal disease from multiple self-reported items in a German practice-based sample. J Periodontol 78:1421–1428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eke PI, Genco RJ (2007) CDC Periodontal Disease Surveillance Project: background, objectives, and progress report. J Periodontol 78:1366S–1371SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Genco RJ, Falkner KL, Grossi S, Dunford R, Trevisan M (2007) Validity of self-reported measures for surveillance of periodontal disease in two western New York population-based studies. J Periodontol 78:1439S–1454SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilbert GH, Litaker MS (2007) Validity of self-reported periodontal status in the Florida Dental Care Study. J Periodontol 78:1429S–1438SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maas W, Genco RJ (2007) CDC Periodontal Disease Surveillance Project could help states plug data gaps. J Periodontol 78:1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller K, Eke PI, Schoua-Glusberg A (2007) Cognitive evaluation of self-report questions for surveillance of periodontitis. J Periodontol 78:1455S–1462SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor GW, Borgnakke WS (2007) Self-reported periodontal disease: validation in an epidemiological survey. J Periodontol 78:1407–1420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eke PI, Page RC, Wei L, Thornton-Evans G, Genco RJ (2012) Update of the case definitions for population-based surveillance of periodontitis. J Periodontol 83:1449–1454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eke PI, Dye BA, Wei L, Slade GD, Thorton-Evans GO, Beck JD, Taylor WS, Borgnakke WS, Page RC, Genco RJ (2013) Self-reported measures for surveillance of periodontitis. J Dent Res 92:1041–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poulton R, Moffitt TE, Silva PA (2015) The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study: overview of the first 40 years, with an eye to the future. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. doi: 10.1007/s00127-015-1048-8 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Irving JC, Elley WB (1977) A socio-economic index for the female labour force in New Zealand. NZ J Educ Studies 12:154–163Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elley WB, Irving JC (1985) The Elley-Irving socio-economic index 1981 census revision. NZ J Educ Studies 20:115–128Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poulton R, Caspi A, Milne BJ, Thomson WM, Taylor A, Sears MR, Moffitt TE (2002) Association between children’s experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: a life-course study. Lancet 360:1640–1645CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodson JM, Holtfreter B, Schwahn C (1986) Clinical measurements of periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 13:446–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slade GD (2007) Interim analysis of validity of periodontitis screening questions in the Australian population. J Periodontol 78:1463–1470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papapanou PN (2012) The prevalence of periodontitis in the US: forget what you were told. J Dent Res 91:907–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Susin C, Kingman A, Albandar JM (2005) Effect of partial recording protocols on estimates of prevalence of periodontal disease. J Periodontol 76:262–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Battelle Memorial Institute (1999). Evaluation of the Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BFRSS) as a source of natural estimates for selected health risk behaviours: final report. Baltimore MDGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ministry of Health (2010) Our oral health: key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey. Ministry of Health, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slade GD, Spencer AJ, Roberts-Thomson KF (2007) Australia’s dental generations: the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06. Aust Inst Health Welf Dent StatRes 34:1–100Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joshipura KJ, Douglass CW, Garcia RI, Valachovic R, Willett WC (1996) Validity of self-reported periodontal measures. J Public Health Dent 56:205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buhlin K, Gustafsson A, Andersson K, Håkansson J, Klinge B (2002) Validity and limitations of self-reported periodontal health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 30:431–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson D, Holtzman D, Bolen J, Stanwyck C, Mack K (2001) Reliability and validity of measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Soz Praventivmed 46:3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. A. Foster Page
    • 1
  • W. M. Thomson
    • 1
  • J. M. Broadbent
    • 1
  1. 1.Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of DentistryThe University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations