ArticleBMC oral health2025
Periodontal precision: diagnostic skills and confidence of dentists in Asian countries in applying the 2017 EFP/AAP periodontal disease classification- a cross-sectional pilot study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe classification of periodontal disease published in 2017 by the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and American Academy of Periodontology (AAP), provides a framework for diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic skills and self-perceived confidence of dentists and dental students based in Asian countries in the use of this classification.
methodsA cross-sectional analytic study design was employed. An online questionnaire encompassing four periodontitis cases was used for data collection. A total of 500 participants were invited to provide a diagnosis and rate their confidence for each case.
resultsResponses were provided by 312 participants completed including 192 females and 120 males. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a statistically significant difference in accuracy across cases by Professional Role (F (9,924) = 2.304, p = 0.005), and an overall difference on accuracy by Professional Role (F (1,308) = 2.304, p = 0.012). The diagnostic accuracy mean was highest for periodontics specialists (57.81 ± 49.78) followed by general dentists (50.00 ± 50.31), other dental specialists (45.00 ± 50.06); and dental students (25.00 ± 43.55). A statistically significant difference in confidence was noted across Age Groups, Gender, and Roles (F(1,291) = 6.356, p < 0.001; F(1,293) = 13.747, p < 0.001; F(1,291) = 8.731, p < 0.001 respectively). There was no statistically significant effect on confidence ratings by any interaction between Location and Case.
conclusionThe study shows the diagnostic accuracy and confidence was highest amongst periodontology specialists followed by general dentists and undergraduate students. Overall the participants showed suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and confidence.
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.