Swedish Dental Journal

leisnert, hallström, knutsson
Table 2. Distribution of number of clinicians within each category that used findings that provide soft tissue inflammation
(1), loss of supporting tissue (2). The majority used the findings solitarily to diagnose chronic periodontitis. Only 12 of 76 used findings
in subgroups 1 and 2 as combinations.
Category of clinicians Findings 1 and 2 Findings 1 or 2
n % n %
Dental students, N=22 15 68 7 32
Dental hygienist students, N=15 15 100 0 0
Supervisors, N=27 18 67 9 33
Dental teachers, N=12 11 92 1 8
Table 3. Number of clinicians within each category that used irrelevant findings to diagnose chronic periodontitis.
Irrelevant findings Dental students Dental hygienist students Supervisors Dental teachers
N=22 N=15 N=27 N=12
n % n % n % n %
Calculus 1 5 10 67 7 26 0 0
Plaque 6 27 10 67 6 22 2 16
Smoking 0 0 2 13 5 19 0 0
Mobility 7 32 6 40 7 26 1 8
TOTAL 13 59 13 87 17 63 3 25
Findings
The 13 findings were divided into three subgroups
showing: soft tissue inflammation, loss of supporting
tissue, and irrelevant findings, i.e. findings
that were considered not being relevant to diagnose
the disease, per se. Table 1 presents the subgroups of
these findings.
Figure 1 presents the number of clinicians that
used each of the 13 findings to diagnose chronic
periodontitis. Within all categories the majority of
the clinicians used deepened pocket, bone loss on xrays,
and bleeding. Differences between the categories
use of findings existed. None of the supervisors
used attachment loss as a finding, while 13% to 27%
of the other categories of clinicians used this finding
(P