Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41004223›Full record

ArticleJournal of periodontology2026

From primary to secondary care level: Assessing patient retention of periodontal staging and grading information.

Pasquale Santamaria, Rohan Mangalpara, Thamara Kumar, Tina Lipovec, Luigi Nibali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pasquale SantamariaPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Rohan MangalparaPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Thamara KumarPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Tina LipovecPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Luigi NibaliPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate communication of periodontal stage and grade by general dentists in primary care is critical for patient understanding and engagement, yet patient retention and self-reporting of this information upon referral to secondary care remains unclear.

methodsA total of 372 periodontal patients referred were informed about their diagnosis by their general dentists and then referred to secondary care level. Data were collected through an eight-item periodontal staging and grading (PSG) questionnaire, along with demographic, medical, and dental records. Periodontal diagnoses were classified by a specialist using the 2018 classification system. Associations between clinical diagnosis and patient perception were analyzed using Chi-square tests and Spearman's rank correlation.

resultsWhile 46.9% of patients diagnosed with periodontitis reported to be informed of their condition, only 19.3% reported knowing their specific stage and grade. Among patients with advanced periodontitis (stage III/IV), self-reported severity often aligned with clinical staging. However, for early-stage disease (stage I/II), perceptions were less accurate, and only 30.2% of grade C patients recognized rapid progression. Significant correlations were found between patient-reported symptoms and clinician-assigned staging: tooth loss (ρ = 0.69, p < 0.0001), root exposure (ρ = 0.638, p < 0.0001), and tooth mobility (ρ = 0.55, p < 0.0001).

conclusionMost patients referred to secondary care lacked information on their disease stage and grade. Severe stages and grades were better perceived by patients compared with mild forms of periodontitis. The PSG questionnaire offers a valuable tool for identifying knowledge gaps and guiding tailored discussions in clinical practice. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Our study asked 372 people referred for gum disease to fill out a simple eight-question survey about how they see their own gum health and compared their answers to the detailed diagnosis made by periodontists. We found that fewer than one in five patients knew exactly how severe their disease was or how fast it was progressing. People with more advanced gum damage generally understood their condition, but those with mild disease often thought they were healthier than they really were. When patients reported losing teeth, seeing root surfaces, or noticing loose teeth, these experiences matched closely with the clinical measures of disease severity. These results show that many patients lack clear information about their gum health and that a brief questionnaire can help dentists pinpoint misunderstandings, improve patient education, and support better treatment decisions.

Indexed as

Periodontal DiseasesPeriodontitisPrimary Health CareSecondary Health CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeriodontal IndexSelf ReportSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and Questionnairespatient educationpatient knowledgeperiodontal gradingperiodontal stagingperiodontitissecondary care

Identifiers

PMID41004223
PMCPMC13001134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.