Periodontal screening and referral behaviour of general dental practitioners in Flanders
The objective of this study was to investigate the screening and referral behaviour of Flemish dentists concerning periodontitis and more specific, the use of the Dutch Periodontal Screening Index (DPSI).
Materials and methods
An online questionnaire was electronically distributed through the different professional dental societies. It consisted of two parts: the first aimed at describing the profile of the dentist. The second part inquired the screening method, when this was applied, periodontal risk factors and referral behaviour.
One thousand fifty dentists attended to the questionnaire. One hundred fifty-nine questionnaires were excluded since they did not match the target audience. Sixty-four percent of Flemish dentists used DPSI as a periodontal screening method, 28% screened based on probing pocket depth, 4% used solely radiographs and 4% had no screening method at all. The usage of DPSI is influenced by the year of graduation: the longer the dentists were graduated, the less they used DPSI. No influence of sex, education centre and location was found. Referral behaviour is influenced by different patient- and dentist-related factors.
Regarding the screening behaviour, there seems a consensus among Flemish dentists that a periodontal probe should be used. For referral, there is no consensus about if and when to refer to a specialist.
It is encouraging that 92% of the Flemish general dental practitioners use a probe when screening for periodontitis. However, DPSI is mainly used by younger dentists. An effort should be made to encourage all dentists to use this, so that in every patient, periodontitis can be detected timely, securing the best treatment outcome.
KeywordsPeriodontitis Screening Referral behaviour Dutch periodontal screening index (DPSI)
We gratefully acknowledge the ‘Leuvense Universitaire Tandheelkunde Vereniging’ (LUTV), ‘Koninklijke Limburgse Tandartsen Vereniging’ (KLTV), ‘Verbond der Vlaamse Tandartsen’ (VVT) and ‘Vlaamse Beroepsvereniging Tandartsen’ (VBT) for their help with distributing the questionnaire. For the statistical analysis, we thank Steven De Peuter.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 13.(1993) Periodontal screening & recording an early detection system. J N J Dent Assoc Spring; 64(2):7–9, 11Google Scholar
- 14.British Society of Periodontology (2001) Periodontology in general dental practice. A policy statement. https://www.bsperio.org.uk/publications/downloads/64_144208_periodontology-in-general-dental-practicein-the-uk.pdf
- 16.Veerle Vivet, Pieter-Jan Miermans (2015) Algemene tandartsen op de arbeidsmarkt, 2012 - Resultaten van de PlanCAD Gegevenskoppeling FOD VVVL - Datawarehouse AM&SB - RIZIVGoogle Scholar