Patterns of periodontal disease progression based on linear mixed models of clinical attachment loss.

AIM: The goal of the present longitudinal cohort study was to examine patterns of periodontal disease progression at progressing sites and subjects defined based on linear mixed models (LMM) of clinical attachment loss (CAL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 113 periodontally healthy and 302 periodontitis subjects had their CAL calculated bimonthly for 12 months. LMMs were fitted for each site and the predicted CAL levels used to categorize their progression state. Participants were grouped based on the number of progressing sites into unchanged, transitional and active subjects. Patterns of periodontal disease progression were explored using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Progression occurred primarily at molars (50% of progressing sites) and inter-proximal sites (72%), affected a higher proportion of deep than shallow sites (2.7% versus 0.7%), and pocketing was the main mode of progression (49%). We found a low level of agreement (47%) between the LMM and traditional approaches to determine progression such as change in CAL ≥3 mm. Fourteen per cent of subjects were classified as active and among those 93% had periodontitis. The annual mean rate of progression for the active subjects was 0.35 mm/year. CONCLUSION: Progressing sites and subjects defined based on LMMs presented patterns of disease progression similar to those previously reported in the literature.

Modelling changes in clinical attachment loss to classify periodontal disease progression.

AIM: The goal of this study was to identify progressing periodontal sites by applying linear mixed models (LMM) to longitudinal measurements of clinical attachment loss (CAL). METHODS: Ninety-three periodontally healthy and 236 periodontitis subjects had their CAL measured bi-monthly for 12 months. The proportions of sites demonstrating increases in CAL from baseline above specified thresholds were calculated for each visit. The proportions of sites reversing from the progressing state were also computed. LMM were fitted for each tooth site and the predicted CAL levels used to categorize sites regarding progression or regression. The threshold for progression was established based on the model-estimated error in predictions. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 21.2%, 2.8% and 0.3% of sites progressed, according to thresholds of 1, 2 and 3 mm of CAL increase. However, on average, 42.0%, 64.4% and 77.7% of progressing sites for the different thresholds reversed in subsequent visits. Conversely, 97.1%, 76.9% and 23.1% of sites classified as progressing using LMM had observed CAL increases above 1, 2 and 3 mm after 12 months, whereas mean rates of reversal were 10.6%, 30.2% and 53.0% respectively. CONCLUSION: LMM accounted for several sources of error in longitudinal CAL measurement, providing an improved method for classifying progressing sites.