Introduction
In the United States, the high prevalence of periodontal disease (47.2%) in individuals 30 years of age and older continues to be a major health problem [1]. If this chronic inflammatory condition is not addressed, it can lead to low nutritional status, masticatory dysfunction, and tooth loss [2]. Additionally, a few studies have indicated a potential connection between systemic disorders and chronic periodontitis, therefore this condition warrants early intervention [3]. In a general dentistry clinic, the majority of patients with minor forms of the condition can be managed with non-surgical therapy; those with moderate to severe forms require surgery intervention. Not every person with periodontitis is equally susceptible to the disease's advancement [4]. Consequently, people who are at a higher risk need to see their general dentist and periodontist frequently. Recognizing and allocating a general and each patient's unique dental prognosis is why it's so important to treatment planning.
The word "prognosis" has Latin roots and means "foreknowledge." The literature has addressed several prediction systems, but there isn't any concrete proof of how allocating future treatment requirements is correlated with an appropriate periodontal prognosis. The prognosis was defined by traditional approaches using tooth mortality as the desired measure. Nonetheless, research has shown that some people can save even severely weakened teeth [5]. The clinician's therapeutic philosophy therefore played a greater role in the decision to eliminate these teeth. When discussing prognosis with patients, professionals must consider many aspects so that the patient can make an informed decision regarding the time and money well spent on the treatment. McGuire and Nunn's widely used prognostication assigned short-term (less than five years) and long-term (eight years) prognoses based on multiple clinical criteria [6]. Nevertheless, the study's accuracy in predicting the short-term prognosis was limited to the good and hopeless categories. estimating the long-term prognosis and possessing several classifications (bad, doubtful) was imprecise and unclear.
Factors of the patient that impact decision-making should also be taken into account when prognostizing. A study by Kwok and Caton gave dental professionals a greater probability of forecasting treatment result based on patient-related characteristics by basing their prognosis on periodontal stability [7]. Once more, though, an analysis of this approach in 2020 revealed that while long-term prognosis (>5 years) was highly varied, individual and overall tooth predictions for the near term (<5>8 years) is not accurately assigned.
The patient can make an educated decision about the time and cost of pursuing the treatment plan with the help of the long-term prognosis. Patients' ages also have a significant role in treatment selections when considering time determining the prognosis. Patients frequently inquire about their chances of maintaining their teeth for the duration of their lives. According to a study by Arias et al., a man's life expectancy at birth was 78 years, while a woman's was 83 years [9]. Long-term survival rates are likewise very high for teeth that have been restored. Research looking into the long-term longevity of fixed dental prostheses, both single and multi-unit, in academic and private settings showed a 70% survival rate on average over 16–20 years [10]. Additionally, a different study showed that for restorations between the ages of 11 and 26, the median average survival rate was 7.5% [11].
Therefore, providing patients with an erroneous long-term periodontal prognosis (>8 years) does not provide them with the correct information to decide whether to proceed with the offered restorative treatment choice. When it comes to treatment alternatives for long-term life expectancy, all of these elements need to be taken into account simultaneously so that patients may make an informed decision. By taking into account the patient's age, host response, diabetes, smoking, percentage of bone loss, and mobility, this article aims to give dental professionals a simple, reliable method of discussing prognosis with patients. This article offers trainee practitioners a way to talk about prognosis with a patient without trying to invent a new prognostication method. Instead, it draws on 50 years of experience from private practice.
The Factors affecting dental treatment prognosis are
Age
There is a complicated link between aging and periodontal disease. Because periodontitis is irreversible, older adults experience more cumulative deterioration than younger adults to someone younger. Adults 65 years of age and older had periodontal disease in 70% of cases [12]. The majority of patients have a gradual progression of periodontal disease; but, in some cases, the host's reaction to bacterial plaque accelerates the disease's course. The prognosis of the disease is thus largely dependent on the age of onset and the rate of progression. When a patient seeks dental care, the patient's age and percentage of bone loss are the primary considerations if prior records are not accessible that can be applied to characterize the way an illness progresses. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between the amount of bone loss caused by periodontal disease in older adults and younger patients. Concern should be expressed if a 20-year-old patient experiences more bone loss than an 80-year-old patient, as the younger patient's prognosis is poorer. Patients frequently want to know how long a treatment would last, as was previously indicated. When evaluating an elderly patient, life expectancy must be taken into account. As a result, estimating the prognosis for an elderly patient may be simpler than for a younger one. For instance, predicting the prognosis of a 35-year-old female patient with the same percentage of bone loss is more challenging than that of a 75-year-old patient. The 35-year-old woman has statistically 48 more years to live to her anticipated life expectancy of 83 years because she has lost more bone in a shorter amount of time. The 75-year-old woman has statistically 8 more years to live to her expected life expectancy because she has lost less bone over time,
making it simpler to accurately forecast a favorable (excellent) prognosis for this patient.
Reaction of the Host to Bacterial Plaque
The patient's vulnerability or resistance to periodontal disease is determined by their host response. Even after accounting for variations in dental cleanliness, some patients nevertheless exhibit more pronounced bone loss as a result of periodontal disease than others. Three main subgroups were found in several studies on populations without access to dental care: Eight percent of patients appeared to be at significant risk of both rapid disease advancement and tooth loss, while eleven percent of subjects showed no disease progression and an exceptionally high resistance to periodontal disease [13]. The 10-80-10 rule, which is supported by a number of further research, summarizes the reasons it's critical to assign an A, B, or C grade to periodontitis based on the new classification system [14]. 10% of patients with a high resistance to periodontal disease (Grade A) may accumulate a lot of plaque, develop a lot of calculus, see their dentist infrequently, and still experience minimal bone loss.
If they have gradually lost teeth, it could be because of orthodontics, trauma, decay, or fractures. It is safe to see these patients every six months with little fear of the condition getting worse. Eighty percent are vulnerable, but if they seek early assistance, they rarely have tooth loss and proceed slowly (Grade B). These patients require continuous monitoring because of the variable rates of progression and resistance to periodontal disease. who, in their lives, will frequently require surgical intervention.
Patients in this category will require ongoing monitoring in addition to a brief periodontal maintenance regimen (three months). The final 10% have a remarkably high chance of developing harmful periodontal disease and undergo a swift advancement of tooth loss and bone loss (Grade C). Research has shown that 38–82% of population diversity in periodontal disease is due to genetics and is uncontrollable [15]. These patients' periodontal health will deteriorate with time, despite the dental team's best efforts. Therefore, the doctor is encouraged to classify each patient into one of the three groups, to provide appropriate treatment techniques, and to set patient expectations to determine an accurate prognosis. Asking a new patient about their frequency of dental prophylaxis and whether they have a family history of periodontal disease will help you better understand their genetic makeup. The clinician can draw significant conclusions from this, the clinical findings of bone loss, and the quantity of calculus/plaque accumulation, in terms of their vulnerability. For instance, you can feel confident that you will achieve better treatment outcomes when treating a patient who is 20 years old and has a good host response to Grade A periodontal disease, heavy plaque/calculus buildup, mild-to-moderate bone loss, and limited access to dental care. However, the same patient may fit into the third (10%) category of quickly advancing periodontal disease (Grade C) if they have minor deposits, >50% bone loss, tooth mobility, and regular access to dental care. These patients have a bad prognosis for periodontal disease and are difficult to treat. Notwithstanding the greatest efforts of the, they keep moving forward quickly, periodontist, hygienist, and patient. For these patients, clinicians should exercise caution when offering long-term restorative treatment alternatives. Dentists can thus make accurate treatment recommendations if they are always informed of the patient's susceptibility to the condition.
Rate of the bone loss and root length
A significant determinant in determining the long-term periodontal prognosis—which translates to a life expectancy of 78 years for men and 83 years for women—is the percentage of bone loss, and a prognosis for restoration. The total amount of connective tissue fibers (attachment) attached to the root surface is indirectly explained by bone height and root shape. In periodontium which is in good health, the root surface area varies from 65 to 85 cm [16]. At a given age, a patient with a low percentage of attachment loss (bone loss) has a better prognosis than one with a greater percentage. a clinical bond loss and bone loss are also potent clinical markers for the current periodontitis staging and grading scheme. To get a percentage, the bone level in health is divided by the bone loss and multiplied by 100. The percentage of bone is used in the new classification. lost in the process of defining a grade and a stage. The stage of periodontitis increases with the amount of bone loss; however, the patient's age must also be considered when establishing the grade or development of the illness. As was previously said, at a given age, a patient with 10% bone loss has a better long-term prognosis than one with 25% bone loss. According to the current grading system, a patient is classed as Grade "A" if they have 10% bone loss at age 40, indicating a slow rate of progression, and as Grade "B" if they have 25% bone loss at age 40, indicating a moderate rate of progression. As a result, the patient with a 10% attachment loss would fare better in the long run.
Mobility
The most frequent dental issue that patients with periodontal disease have is tooth movement. Additionally, patients frequently have a greater understanding of tooth mobility than they do of other clinical variables such as furcation involvements, clinical attachment, and probing depth. Four variables affect mobility: 4. Occlusion-related trauma; 5. Root morphology (short roots, resorption, unfavorable root anatomy); 6. Bone height (amount of bone encapsulation assessed in square millimeters of root surface area); and 7. Inflammation. Therefore, determining and treating the etiology is linked to decreasing tooth movement. When it comes to tooth movement, occlusion is crucial. The phrase "occlusal trauma" refers to damage caused by occlusal stresses to the periodontium, which includes the cementum, alveolar bone, and periodontal ligament [17]. Everyone agrees that persistent occlusal forces, rather than high occlusal forces, are what lead to periodontal disease, on a smaller periodontium still requires more research. A study by Reinhardt et al. showed that when 60% of the bone support was gone, the periodal ligament was under more stress [17]. It is therefore advised to make occlusal modifications when tooth mobility is noticed. The prognosis of a tooth also diminishes based on the quantity of bone loss and movement noted. Bone If the interproximal bone surface is flat, it is difficult to restore lost height (horizontal bone deficiencies). On the other hand, membranes, growth agents, and grafting materials can repair circumferential or vertical bone defects that surround walls. Consider a lower molar with a 3 mm deep and 6 mm wide bone defect. There will only be an additional 18 mm2 of new attachment to the root surface if this deficiency results in new bone fill or fibrous attachment after attempting regenerative therapies.It's unclear if this would eventually make movement less possible.
Additionally, trying periodontal regeneration techniques can strengthen the adhesion of the periodontal tissue to the root surface, albeit it is still questionable if this will result in actual regeneration. After regenerative operations, excessive tooth mobility (Grades 2–3) also has a detrimental effect on periodontal repair. In these situations, it is advisable to try occlusal modifications and splinting to reduce tooth mobility before attempting regeneration [18]. In conclusion, teeth with greater than 50% bone loss and significant tooth movement have a poorer prognosis. Teeth with Grade 1 inflammatory mobility can be managed, as it has been demonstrated that mobility decreases as inflammation goes down. Finally, one clinical element that physicians should take into account is the influence of root morphology (Crown root ratio) in prognosis prediction. The prognosis worsens if these teeth exhibit more mobility because the root shape cannot be altered.
Smoking
It is widely acknowledged that smoking poses a significant danger to the advancement of periodontal disease. It affects the human immunological response as well as the microbiota, which in turn causes dysbiosis. Smoking causes the gingival vasculature to constrict, which lowers the amount of protective factors derived from serum and the amount of leukocytes that can enter the periodontal tissues [19]. Additionally, smoking impairs immunity, which makes it more difficult to combat periodontal disease. Numerous studies have also shown that smoking affects the healing process following periodontal therapy [20]. Periodontal disease-related tooth loss is highly correlated with smoking status, daily pack count, years of smoking, and years since stopping. In comparison to non-smokers, male smokers have a 3.6-fold increased risk of tooth loss, while female smokers have a 2.5-fold increased risk [21]. Compared to non-smokers, current smokers are often twice as likely to have periodontal disease. The present classification method assigns a Grade after accounting for the effects of smoking more than ten cigarettes. The prognosis and course of the illness are reflected in the grade. Patients in grade C (smoking more than ten cigarettes per day) have a poorer prognosis due to their increased risk of bone loss and illness progression. Reiterating the importance of urging patients to give up smoking and the necessity of regular maintenance sessions is necessary because current smokers have poor host responses.
Diabetes
Periodontitis is more common in people with diabetes, according to epidemiological research that has repeatedly demonstrated this connection. Although type 2 diabetes has received the majority of attention in research, type 1 diabetes also has a similar impact on the advancement of periodontal disease [22]. Compared to people without diabetes, diabetics have a 2.5–3 times higher risk of developing periodontal disease. It just increases the likelihood of periodontal disease by three times, not the likelihood of it occurring [23]. Studies have indicated a reciprocal association between diabetes and periodontal disease. It has been demonstrated that there are changes in microbial populations, the micro and macro vasculature, decreased host immune cell response, and accumulation and activation of advanced glycation end products can cause periodontal disease by raising the inflammatory response in a diabetic. On the other hand, untreated periodontal disease causes a constant release of inflammatory mediators that impact insulin resistance and raise glucose levels [24]. There is evidence to suggest that the degree of glycemic management affects the extent of risk. When glycemic control declines, the risk of periodontal disease progression rises tenfold. Thus, while determining a grade, the current classification takes glycemic control into account. A patient is classified as at higher risk and given a Grade C, indicating a poorer prognosis, if their HbA1c is greater than 7.0. For best outcomes, patients at higher risk are encouraged to lower their glucose levels and stick to shorter maintenance programs.
Conclusions
When creating a treatment plan, private dental office experience has shown that these six prognostic criteria have remained most consistent. While there are many criteria to take into account, this article outlines the ones that are most important in establishing a prognosis. Additionally, general dentists can quickly and easily assess these characteristics before choosing a restoration therapy.
