SynthesisJournal of clinical periodontology2025
Evaluating the Performance and Implementation of the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Survey.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the Performance and Implementation of the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Survey.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Pooled it
- Association between salivary alkaline phosphatase levels and periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BDJ open · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches in Periodontology: From Traditional Concepts to Modern Innovations.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Impact of the 2018 periodontal classification on diagnosis, treatment strategies, and assessment of prognosis by dental hygienists in Swedish general dental care.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Periodontitis awareness and knowledge levels among undergraduate dental students.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and consistency in applying the 2017 periodontal classification among dental professionals.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
- A Clinical Review of the Connections Between Diabetes Mellitus, Periodontal Disease, and Cardiovascular Pathologies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- The 2018 Classification of Periodontitis: Challenges from Clinical Perspective.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Consensus Report of the 20th European Workshop on Periodontology: Contemporary and Emerging Technologies in Periodontal Diagnosis.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Article
- Clinical validation of a web-based decision support system for periodontal diagnosis, risk assessment, and recall planning: A multicenter study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the performance and implementation of the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases for periodontitis through systematic review and survey methodology. MATERIALS AND
methodsA two-part systematic review was conducted. Part 1 aimed, with descriptive statistics, to evaluate performance metrics of the 2018 Classification, including diagnostic accuracy, prognostic performance and examiner reliability. Part 2 used thematic analysis to elucidate facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the classification. A survey collected evidence of barriers, facilitators and local implementation.
resultsPart 1 of this review included 14 individual studies of moderate risk of bias. Eight studies examined diagnostic accuracy, three studies examined prognostic efficacy and three studies examined inter-/intra-rater reliability. Part 2 included 33 individual studies with data considered at high risk of bias. The survey returned 1113 responses. The thematic analysis in Part 2 led to seven findings, five related to facilitators and two concerning barriers to the implementation. Survey results showed that 78% of respondents currently use the classification, but the most common concerns relate to its complexity.
conclusionsThe 2018 Classification performs well as a classification in comparison with previous classifications. Specific identified barriers have potentially limited the comprehensive uptake of the classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.