ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Impact of the 2018 periodontal classification on diagnosis, treatment strategies, and assessment of prognosis by dental hygienists in Swedish general dental care.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
treatment strategies, and prognostic assessments made by dental hygienists in general dentistry, compared with the 1999 classification. MATERIALS AND
methodsA questionnaire comprising five patient cases was administered to dental hygienists in Sweden on two separate occasions. For each case, diagnoses, treatment plans, and prognostic assessments were proposed, first using the 1999 and subsequently the 2018 classification. Cases ranged from no marginal bone loss attributed to periodontitis and few (<10%) bleeding sites to marginal bone loss >30% and generalized inflammation (>30%). Answers from the two occasions were compared.
resultsA total of 142 dental hygienists completed both questionnaires. Diagnostic assessments changed significantly in three of the five cases when using the 2018 classification (p < 0.05). In four cases, fewer treatment sessions were recommended, and more optimistic prognostic assessments were made when using the 2018 classification (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe 2018 classification resulted in greater variation in proposed diagnoses in cases without clear attachment loss and was associated with fewer recommended treatment sessions and more optimistic prognostic assessments. However, it appeared at least as effective as the 1999 classification in identifying cases with periodontitis.
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.