Difference in Assessment Results of Gingiva Bleeding between 2013 Revised and Conventional CPI Methods

DOI Web Site
  • SATO Toshiro
    Division of Preventive Dentistry, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry
  • OISHI Taiko
    Division of Preventive Dentistry, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry
  • ABE Akiko
    Division of Preventive Dentistry, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry
  • NANBA Masaki
    Division of Preventive Dentistry, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry
  • SAKATA Kiyomi
    Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Medicine
  • MIURA Hiroyuki
    Division of Dental Education, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry
  • SHIMODA Haruki
    Department of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Medicine
  • KISHI Mitsuo
    Division of Preventive Dentistry, Department of Oral Medicine, Iwate Medical University, School of Dentistry

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • Community Periodontal Index ‹CPI›の2013年改訂法と従来法による同一集団に対する評価結果の差違
  • Community Periodontal Index 〈CPI〉の2013年改訂法と従来法による同一集団に対する評価結果の差違
  • Community Periodontal Index 〈 CPI 〉 ノ 2013ネン カイテイホウ ト ジュウライ ホウ ニ ヨル ドウイツ シュウダン ニ タイスル ヒョウカ ケッカ ノ サイ

Search this article

Description

<p> The CPI method was revised in the WHO Oral Examination Method 5th Edition published in 2013. The main revised points are as follows: Gingiva bleeding on probing (BOP) and periodontal pockets are recorded in each independent assessment score. Accordingly, all observed gingiva bleeding, scored 2-4 with the conventional CPI method, is recorded. In addition, tooth calculus deposition is no longer included as an assessment parameter. The aim of this study was to reveal the difference in results between the revised and conventional methods.</p><p> In 2016, we recorded the periodontal status by both the revised and conventional methods involving residents of Otsuchi Town, Iwate Pref., where we have annually surveyed the oral health since 2011. Among the 1,159 examinees, 882 had one or more index tooth of CPI (327 men and 555 women, average age 64.2±12.9 years old). As the results for the 882 subjects, we noted BOP loss in 60.3% of subjects, recorded as personal scores of 2-4 in the conventional method. Against the gain of BOP information, the prevalence of examinees with periodontal problems became significantly lower (84.2 to 69.3%) on using the revised method due to the exclusion of calculus deposition.</p><p> Therefore, we consider that the periodontal condition should be recorded in a way that corresponds to both the conventional and revised methods.</p>

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top