Indices of Periodontal disease

Introduction Health examination is not complete without the oral health assessment. Regular assessment of dental diseases have been seen to be important as they keep on varying in occurrence and severity. This has to be measured both qualitatively and quantitatively and the measure of these parameters are recorded by an Index (plural Indices). It is a very important tool in the branch of dental public health and in the study of epidemiology.

Definitions An Index has been defined by Russell as A numerical value describing the relative status of a population on a graduated scale with definite upper and lower limits, which is designed to permit and facilitate comparison with other populations classified by the same criteria and methods.

Periodontal disease means disease involving either or all of the attachment apparatus of a tooth. Many researchers place gingival diseases also under the heading of Periodontal diseases while others differentiate the two.

Periodontitis is a bacterially induced inflammation of the gingival tissues together with loss of both the attachment of the periodontal ligament and bony support.

Periodontal Index (PI) This Index was developed by Russell A.L. (1956).

It took him ten years to develop this index because of a lack of sophisticated methodologies to assess the prevalence and severity of gingivitis and destructive periodontal disease. In earlier times, clinical appearance of the tissues of the anterior teeth was taken as the only basis for segregating individuals for epidemiologic studies of gingival and periodontal disease in large populations. These observations permitted evaluation of only relative proportions of affected and unaffected individuals in the populations under consideration. So, according to WHO the PI has made great strides to the epidemiology of periodontal disease due to its definition that very quickly achieved wide international acceptance. (WHO, 1999)

However nowadays this index in not used much in epidemiologic surveys because of the introduction of new periodontal indices and refinement of criteria amid increasing periodontal research.

The PI was intended to estimate deeper periodontal disease by measuring the presence or absence of gingival inflammation and its severity, pocket formation, and masticatory function. The scale of value for the PI ranges from 0 8 with increasing prevalence and severity of disease. The PI is a composite index because it records both the reversible changes due to gingivitis and the more destructive and presumably irreversible changes brought by deeper periodontal disease. Because of this, it is an epidemiological index with a true biological gradient.

Method All the teeth present are examined. Gingival tissue is assessed for gingival inflammation and periodontal involvement.

Instruments used Mouth mirror and explorer are supplemented occasionally by straight jaquette scaler or the chip blower for demonstration of a periodontal pocket. Periodontal probing was not recommended because, according to Russell, it added little and proved to be a troublesome focus of examiner disagreement.

Scoring Criteria Russell chose the scoring values (0,1,2,4,6,8) in order to relate the stages of the disease in an epidemiological survey to the clinical conditions observed.

Russells rule According to Russells rule When in doubt assign the lower score.

Calculation of the index The PI score per individual is obtained by adding all of the individual scores and i.e. PI score per person = Sum of individual scores/number of teeth. dividing by the number of teeth present or examined.

PI score per group = Sum of scores of all individuals/number of individuals

Scoring

Relation to clinical severity (1959)

Clinical conditions Clinically normal supportive tissues Simple gingivitis

PI scores

Treatment

0 to 0.2

0.3 to 0.9

Oral prophyllaxis

Beginning

of

destructive

periodontal disease

0.7 to 1.9

Minimal periodontal treatment

Established

destructive

periodontal disease

1.6 to 5.0

Ellaborate treatment

periodontal

Terminal disease

3.8 to 8.0

Full mouth extractions

Uses of PI 1.Used in epidemiological surveys. 2.More data can be assembled using PI than most other indices of periodontal disease. 3.Used in the national Health Survey (NHS), the largest ongoing health survey in the United States. 4.The PI is fast and easy to use. 5.Use of the PI requires a minimum of equipment: a light source, a plane mouth mirror and an explorer. 6.PI serves well for making an overall assessment of the periodontal status of a population. It is also important because a number of epidemiological surveys have been conducted world over using this index.

Drawbacks of PI 1.Since no caliberated probe or essentially radiographs are used when performing the PI examination, the results tend to underestimate the true level of periodontal disease, especially early bone loss in a population. 2.The number of periodontal pockets without obvious supragingival calculus is also underestimated in the periodontal index. 3.It doesnt indicate the degree of periodontal tissue destruction. 4.Modern understanding has shown the PI to be invalid because it does not include evaluation of Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL), grades all pockets of 3 mm or more equally and scores gingivitis and Periodontitis on the same weighted scale.

Periodontal Disease Index As a consultant to the World Health Organization for a 1957 study of periodontal disease in India, Ramfjord was faced with the inadequacies of the available indices for measuring periodontal disease. Taking the most valuable features of existing indices and adding new features to compensate for their shortcomings, Ramfjord developed his own system for measuring periodontal disease. This system became known as the Periodontal Disease Index (PDI).

The Periodontal Disease Index (PDI) was developed by Siguard P. Ramfjord in 1959.

The PDI is a clinicians modification of Russells Periodontal Index.

As in the case of the PI, the PDI was developed due to a lack of methodologies to determine prevalence and severity and with the intent to be a more sensitive version of the PI for use in clinical trials. The PDI has been framed to be accurate for use in longitudinal studies. The PDI is primarily concerned with an accurate assessment of the periodontal status of the individual person.

Objectives 1. To assess prevalence and severity of gingivitis and Periodontitis within the individual dentitions and in population groups. 2. To provide an accurate basis for longitudinal studies of periodontal disease. 3. To provide a meaningful basis for estimate of need for periodontal therapy in selected population groups. 4. To provide accurate recordings for clinical trials of preventive and therapeutic procedures in periodontics. 5. To provide measurable reference data for assessment of correlations with factors of potential significance in the etiology of periodontal disease. The most important feature of PDI is measurement of the level of the periodontal attachment related to the CEJ of the teeth.

Components of Periodontal Disease Index The PDI comprises of three components, namely: 1. Plaque component 2. Calculus component 3.Gingival and Periodontal component

Scoring methods

Only six selected teeth are scored for assessment of the periodontal status of the mouth; however, for short term clinical trials and where a limited number of patients are available, one may concern all of the teeth in the mouth. The six selected index teeth are (according to FDI notation 16, 21, 24, 36, 41, 44). These are known as Ramfjords teeth. The gingival status is scored first. The

gingivae around the teeth to be scored are first dried superficially by gently touching with absorbing cotton.

Changes in colour are evaluated by observing the colour of the gingivae around the tooth to be scored and comparing the colour corresponding to the buccal, lingual and interproximal surfaces with each other, as well as comparing it with the colour of the gingiva around the adjacent teeth.

Change in form is initially a blunting or rounding of the margin of the gingivae and thickening of papillae. However slight contour change alone is never scored as gingivitis.

Presence or absence of stippling is not considered as related to gingival inflammation.

Change in consistency is checked by applying gentle pressure with the side of periodontal probe against the gingiva to determine if there is a soft or spongy consistency.

Any minor change either in contour, stippling or consistency alone is not considered to be a definite manifestation of gingivitis.

Evidence of ulceration of the gingiva with bleeding is considered, if the

gingiva is touched gently with the side of a periodontal probe, of if there is severe redness and marked change in contour.

The next step is recording of crevice depth related to the CEJ. For this purpose, a University of Michigan number O probe is used. The end of the probe should be placed against the enamel surface coronally to the margin of the gingiva so that the angle formed by the working end of the probe and long axis of the crown of the tooth is approximately 45. Minimal force should be used to pass the probe in apical direction maintaining contact with the tooth. The probe should always be pointed towards the apex of the tooth or the central axis of multirooted teeth. After the distance from the free gingival margin to the CEJ has been measured, an attempt should be made to move the probe along the cemental surface. This can be achieved only if there has been loss of periodontal attachment.

The University of Michigan number O probe is graduated at 3, 6 and 8 mm, making it necessary to estimate intervening measurements.

The buccal measurements should be made at the middle of the buccal surfaces. The mesial measurement should be made at the buccal aspect of the interproximal contact area with the probe touching both teeth if there is a neighbour tooth present and the probe pointing in the direction of the long axis of the tooth to be scored. Later on it was simplified by taking the score at the

mesial surface of the tooth as representative of all surfaces.

The following criteria is used for crevicular measurements:-

1. If the gingival margin is on enamel, measure from gum margin to CEJ and record the measurement. Then record the distance from the

gingival margin to the bottom of the pocket. The distance from the CEJ to the bottom of the pocket can then be found by subtracting the first from the second measurement. 2. If the gingival margin is on cementum, record the distance from the CEJ to the gingival margin as a minus value (a) then record the distance from the CEJ to the bottom of the gingival crevice as a positive value (b). Both loss of attachment and actual crevice depth can easily be assessed from these scores.

Ramfjords method for measuring this distance is often referred to as the Indirect method for measuring periodontal attachment loss

Scoring Score Criteria 0 1 2 3 Absence of inflammation Mild to moderate gingival changes not extending all around the tooth Mild to moderate gingival changes extending all around the tooth Severe gingivitis

Calculation of the PDI score The PDI score can be calculated for an individual and a group

For Individual = Total of individual tooth scores/ Number of teeth examined

For group = Total individual PDI score/ Number of people examined

Either of the PDI score ranges from 0 6. If any of the six index teeth is missing, another tooth is not substituted in its place.

Uses: 1. Epidemiologic surveys 2.Longitudinal studies in periodontal diseases

Drawbacks: 1. Values marked on probe are 3, 6, 8 mm. Hence in between scores need to be estimated, hence leading to inter examiner bias. 2. It is more time consuming as compared to Russells Index.

Although the PDI is rarely used nowadays, two aspects of the index are often used: Selection of the six Ramfjord teeth and the method for measuring pocket depth and loss of periodontal attachment. Ramfjords technique for measuring pocket depth and periodontal attachment loss has been used in national surveys (e.g. NHANES)

Gingival Periodontal Index Developed by OLeary T J, Gibson W A, Shannon I L, Schuessler C F and Nabers C L, in 1963. This index is also known as Periodontal Screening Examination The GPI is a modification of the PDI of the Ramfjord for the purpose of screening individuals to determine who needs periodontal treatment. The GPI assesses three components of periodontal disease: gingival status; periodontal status (crevice depth); and collectively material alba, calculus and

overhanging restoration. The latter triad is independently called as the Irritation index.

Segmentation of the mouth The Dentition is divided into six segments: (According to FDI notation) 18 to 14, 13 to 23, 24 to 28, 38 to 34, 33 to 43, 44 to 48.

Method: Scoring is done on all teeth present. The assessment is done segment wise. Eachsegment is assessed for each of the three components of periodontal disease. The primary objective in using the index is to determine the tooth or its surrounding tissues, with the severest condition within each segment.

Gingival status The specific criteria for the gingival status component of the GPI are as follows:

The highest score found on any tooth in a segment is recorded as the periodontal score for the segment.

Compiling the Gingival Periodontal Index The highest score (either gingival or periodontal) found for each dentulous segment is recorded and the sum is divided by the number of segments to give the GPI score for the individual. Uses 1.To monitor patient progress 2.For epidemiologic surveys

Gingival Bone (GB) Count Index The GB count index was given by Dunning J M and Leach L B (1960) This index records the gingival condition and the level of the crest of the alveolar bone. This index permits differential recording of both gingival and bone conditions. The bone level is assessed by clinical examination but radiographs are recommended for greater accuracy. Subjective measurement of gingivitis is made on an arbitrary scale of 0 to 3 for each tooth, and proportionate measurement of bone loss is made on a 0 to 5 scale.

Scoring

One score is assigned to each tooth studied, and a mean is computed for the whole mouth.

Shetham A and Striffler D F developed an index similar to the Bone count component index in 1970. The criteria used for scoring bone loss is as follows: Score Criteria

Normal Lack of continuity of cortical plate at the crest of interdental bone, with possible widening of Periodontal Ligament. Up to 1/3rd of supporting bone lost

More than 1/3rd and up to 2/3rd of supporting bone lost

More than 2/3rd of supporting bone lost

Disadvantages The index in its present form does not distinguish between slight involvement of many teeth and extensive involvement of a few teeth. Time consuming

Extent and Severity Index (ESI) This index was developed by J P Carlos, M D Wolfe and A Kingman (1986) to assess the extent (i.e. number of sites affected within the mouth) and severity (i.e. stage of advancement) of loss of Periodontal attachment (LPA) by determining the percentage of sites within the mouth with LPA greater than 1 millimeter (i.e. extent) and the mean LPA for affected sites (i.e. severity). The ESI utilizes the Ramfjords method to measure loss of periodontal attachment.

The ESI was developed because of a lack of satisfaction with the previous indices of periodontal disease and because of the emergence of a newer conceptual model of periodontal disease by Socransky and associates

The PI was based on a model in which periodontal disease was a slowly progressing, continuous disease process. It dealt with gingivitis as part of the biologic gradient that extended from health to advanced periodontal disease. In the newer model, periodontal disease is a chronic process, with intermittent periods of activity and remission that affects individual teeth and sites around teeth at different rates within the same mouth.

Some consider the ESI not to be a true index since it summarizes data and is descriptive rather than analytical.

The ESI is considered to be a simple and reproducible procedure requiring minimal examiner training. It can be used in a variety of survey types such as cross sectional surveys and longitudinal studies. Furthermore, the ESI has demonstrated relatively the same level of reliability in partial mouth examinations versus full mouth examinations.

Procedure To obtain the ESI, use a random procedure (e.g., a coin toss) to select which upper quadrant to examine. The contralateral quadrant in the lower arch is then automatically decided. Afterwards, mid-buccal and the mesio-buccal aspects of each tooth using the Ramfjord procedure.

This results in a maximum of 28 measurements (i.e. a maximum of 14 measurements in each quadrant) for each subject.

Third molars are not examined.

For the ESI, a tooth site is considered diseased only when loss of attachment exceeds 1 mm. So as stated earlier, disease extent, E, is expressed as the percentage of sites among examined sites with an LPA greater than 1 mm.

Disease severity, S, is expressed as the mean loss of attachment, in excess of 1 mm, for affected or diseased sites. So, the ESI is written as follows where E is rounded off to the nearest whole number.

ESI = (E, S) An ESI expressed as (27, 1.34) means, on average, 27% of sites examined showed evidence of disease, with an average severity of 1.34 mm loss of attachment per diseased site.

In addition, for interpretation, an ESI of (60, 2.0) suggests a generalized but mild form of periodontal disease whereas an ESI of (20, 6.0) suggests a severe localized form of periodontal involvement.

Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) This index was developed for the Joint Working Committee of the World Health Organization and Federation Dentaire Internationale (WHO/ FDI) by Jukka Ainamo, David Barmes, George Beagrie, Terry Cutress, Jean Martin and Jennifer Sardo-infirri in 1978.

This index was developed primarily to survey and evaluate periodontal treatment needs rather than determining past and present periodontal status, i.e., the recession of the gingival margin and alveolar bone.

The CPITN is an evolution of the 621 method, named for the WHO Technical Report Series (TRS) publication number in which this method was first featured.

Having accepted that periodontal disease is one of the most wide spread diseases of mankind, the Oral health unit of the World Health Organization (WHO) took the initiative to organize a group of experts from 14 member countries to examine and advise on the epidemiology, etiology and prevention of periodontal diseases.

The assessment of gingivitis, pathological pockets and numbers of erupted teeth were considered basic to data requirements. For population studies and field trials, having the objective of developing a method for the evaluation of treatment needs, recording of plaque was considered less important than the assessment of its consequences, gingival bleeding and pocket formation. Gingival recession and tooth mobility were also excluded from the recordings.

As far as calculus is concerned, it was included as being necessary to any study of treatment need.

Scope and Purpose The CPITN procedure is recommended for epidemiological surveys of periodontal health. Also, it provides guidance on the planning and monitoring of the effectiveness of periodontal care programmes and the dental personnel required. The CPITN is a procedure which uses clinical parameters and criteria relevant to planning for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases. The CPITN is not intended as a comprehensive assessment of total past and present periodontal disease experience.

The CPITN records the common treatable conditions, namely periodontal pockets, gingival inflammation (identified by bleeding of gentle probing) and dental calculus and other plaque retentive factors. It does not record irreversible changes such as recession or other deviations from periodontal health such as tooth mobility or loss of periodontal attachment. The major advantages of CPITN are: 1. Simplicity 2. Speed, and 3. International uniformity

Its limitations include partial recording, exclusion of some important signs of past periodontal breakdown notably attachment loss and absence of any marker of disease activity or susceptibility.

CPITN is therefore not a diagnostic tool and should not be used for planning of specific clinical treatment of individual patients.

Primarily the CPITN is a screening procedure for identifying actual and potential problems posed by periodontal diseases both in the community and by the individual.

With this information appropriate oral care services can be planned for populations and for individuals.

Treatment needs It implies that CPITN assesses only those conditions potentially responsive to treatment, but not non-treatable or irreversible conditions (i.e. recession, attachment level).

Reasons for attempting to control periodontal disease and promote good periodontal care include, improved quality of life, enhanced general well-being and appearance, reduced halitosis, elimination of bleeding from the gums, reduced potential threat to longevity of teeth, and improved mastication.

In order to determine periodontal disease status, the group supported the use of a partial mouth recording system with scores being taken with the aid of a probe from two surfaces of six teeth.

Originally, in the maxilla, these were the facial and mesial aspects of the right first molar (16 FDI notation), left central incisor (21) and left first premolar (24) and in the mandible, the lingual and mesial aspects of

the left first molar (36), right central incisor (41) and right first premolar (44).

This selection of teeth was as proposed by Ramfjord (1959) for partial mouth recording of periodontal disease.

The recordings were made in the following order, for the presence or absence of: 1. Supragingival calculus 2. Subgingival calculus 3.Pocket depths of 4 or 5 mm

4.Pocket depths of 6 mm or more 5.Gingival bleeding after probing 6.Recession (eventually recession scores were discarded).(2 )

Procedure for CPITN The dentition is divided into six parts (sextants) for assessment of periodontal treatment needs. Each sextant is given a score. For epidemiological purposes, the score is identified by examination of specific index teeth. For clinical practice, the highest score in each sextant is identified after examining all teeth.

Sextants Six sextants (depicted based on FDI notation) 17 14 13 23 24 27 47 44 43 -33 34 37

The third molars are not included, except where they are functioning in place of second molars.

The treatment need in a sextant is recorded only if there are two or more teeth present and not indicated for extraction. When only one tooth remains in a sextant, it is included in the adjacent sextant.

Index teeth In epidemiological surveys assessing the periodontal treatment needs of a population, the recordings per sextant are based on findings from specified index teeth.

The WHO Periodontal Examination Probe CPITN Probe Figure - CPITN Probe The recommended periodontal probe for use with CPITN was first described by WHO (TRS -621 1978). This probe was designed for two purposes, namely measurement of pocket depth and detection of subgingival calculus. The CPITN probe is both thin in the handle and is of very light weight (5 gms). This probe is particularly designed for gentle manipulation of the often very sensitive soft tissues around the teeth.

The pocket depth is measured through colour coding with a black band starting at3.5 mm and ending at 5.5 mm. The probe has a ball tip of 0.5 mm diameter that allows easy detection of subgingival calculus. This feature combined with the light probe weight facilitates the identification of the base of the pocket, thus decreasing the tendency for false reading by over measurement.

A variant of this basic probe has two additional lines at 8.5 mm and 11.5 mm from the working tip. The additional lines may be of use when performing a detailed assessment and recording of deep pockets for the purpose of preparing a treatment plan for complex periodontal therapy.

The Joint Working Committee of WHO/ FDI have advised the manufacturers of CPITN probes to identify the instruments as either CPITNE for the epidemiological probe with 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm markings, or CPITNC for the clinical probe with additional 8.5 mm and 11.5 mm markings. Probing procedure A tooth is probed to determine pocket depth and to detect subgingival calculus and bleeding response. The probing force can be divided into a working component to determine pocket depth and a sensing component to detect subgingival calculus.

The working force should not be more than 20 grams a practical testfor establishing this force is to gently insert the probe point under the finger nailwithout causing pain or discomfort.

The probe is inserted between the tooth and the gingiva, and the sulcus depth or pocket depth is noted against the colour code or measuring lines. The ball end of the probe should be kept in contact with the root surface. The direction of the probe during insertion should, whenever possible be in the same plane as the long axis of the tooth. For sensing subgingival calculus, the lightest possible force which will allow movement of the probe ball point along the tooth surface is used. Pain to the patient during probing is in most cases indicative of the use of a too heavy probing force.

Recommended sites for probing are mesial, mid line and distal, both on facial and lingual/ palatal surfaces. The probing may be done by withdrawing the probe between each probing or alternatively, with the probe tip remaining in the sulcus, the probe may be walked around the tooth. Sites in addition to the recommended ones should be probed if there is suspicion that a higher scoring condition is present.

When gently inserting the probe into the gingival pocket, the ball tip should follow the anatomic configuration of the tooth root surface. The probing may be done by withdrawing the probe between each probing or by the probe tip remaining in the sulcus or pocket in order to walk the probe around each surface (i.e. buccal and lingual) of the tooth (Cutress, Ainamo and sardo-infirri, 1987).

Walking the probe should be done with short upward and downward movements.

After probing, the gingiva or gum of the examined tooth should be inspected for the presence or absence of bleeding before the subject is allowed to swallow or close their mouth. Bleeding may be delayed for up to 10 30 seconds after probing.

Codes and Criteria The appropriate code for each sextant is determined with respect to the following criteria. The codes are listed in descending order of treatment complexity as follows: Code X When only one tooth or no teeth are present in a sextant (third molars are excluded unless they function in place of second molars)

Code 4 Pathological pocket of 6 mm or more present i.e. the black area of CPITN probe is not visible. Recording of code 4 makes further examination of that sextant unnecessary.

Code 3 Pathological pocket of 4 mm or 5mm present, i.e. when the gingival margin is on the black area of the probe.

Note:- If the deepest pocket found at the designated tooth or teeth in a sextant is 4or 5 mm, a code of 3 is recorded there is no need to examine for calculus or gingival bleeding.

Code 2 Calculus or other retentive factors such as ill fitting crowns or poorly adapted edges of restorations are either seen or felt during probing. Note:- If code 2 is attained, there is no need to examine for gingival bleeding.

Code 1 Bleeding observed during or after probing. Note:- If neither pathological pocket nor calculus is observed, but bleeding occurs after gentle probing, a code of 1 is recorded for the sextant.

Code 0 Healthy tissue; No signs of disease is observed.

Examination procedure The aim is to determine the highest score applicable to each sextant with the least number of measurements.

First decide whether the sextant can be validly scored. The requirement is that more than one functional tooth is present. If no, then score x and move to next sextant. If yes, examine index teeth (in epidemiological procedure), or examine all teeth (for clinical screening procedure), for presence of 6mm or deeper pockets,4 or 5 mm deep pockets, calculus or other plaque retentive factor, bleeding only, in that order. Determine appropriate highest score for each sextant. As soon as the highest scored criterion has been determined there is no need to examine for the presence of lower score criteria.

Classification of treatment needs (TN) A recording of Code 0 (healthy) or code X (missing) for all six sextants indicates that there is no need for treatment (TN - 0)

Bleeding is a sign of early disease which can be overcome by self care following suitable oral health education and instruction. Control of bleeding by means of self care is a pre- requisite for all periodontal therapy. This treatment is recognized as Treatment need 1 (TN -1)

The control or elimination of gingival bleeding should be a prime goal even if further treatment is not available.

Although not pathological in themselves, calculus and other plaque retentive factors favour plaque retention and inflammation. Unlike plaque that can be eliminated through self care, the removal of calculus and other plaque retentive factors demands the professional care defined as Treatment need 2 (TN -2)

The depth of a pocket is not necessarily related to the amount of attachment loss. The CPITN differentiates between pockets of 4 or 5 mm and 6 mm or deeper because of the currently accepted different approach to their treatment. Oral hygiene and scaling will usually reduce inflammation and bring a 4 or 5 mm sulcus depth or below 3 mm. Sextants with such pockets are placed in the same treatment category as calculus and other plaque retentive factors i.e., scaling and root plaining. (TN -2)

* Therefore, a CPITN code of 2 or 3 means TN 2.

On the other hand, for patients with deep pockets even after scaling, root plaining and control of bleeding by oral hygiene, there will generally be residual pockets. The treatment of these conditions may require complex therapy for which skilled clinically trained and experienced dental personnel are needed. This need for complex treatment is recognized as Treatment need 3 (TN -3)

A sextant scoring code 4 also will fall in Treatment need 3 (TN -3)

Substitution for excluded and missing Index teeth The index (and substitute) teeth are excluded from the CPITN scoring when the decision has been made to go for extraction due to any cause.

The indication for extraction because of periodontal involvement is that the tooth has vertical mobility and causes discomfort to the patient.

The ten CPITN index teeth are the first and second molars in the posterior sextants and a central incisor in each of the two anterior sextants. When one or more of the index teeth are missing or excluded at the time of examination, substitute teeth are selected, using the following rules.

1. Remember that 2 or more functioning teeth must be present in a sextant for it to qualify for scoring. 2. If in a posterior sextant, one of the two index teeth is not present or has to be excluded, then the recording is based on the examination of the remaining index tooth. 3. If both index teeth in a posterior sextant are absent or excluded from the examination, all the remaining teeth in that sextant are examined and the highest score is recorded. 4. In the anterior maxillary sextant if tooth 11 is excluded, substitute 21 for it. If 21 is also excluded then identify the worst score for the remaining teeth. Similarly, substitute for mandibular teeth. 5. In subjects under 20 years of age, if the first molar is not present or has to be excluded, the nearest adjacent premolar is examined. 6. If all teeth in a sextant are missing or only one functional tooth remains, the sextant is coded as missing. 7. A single tooth in a sextant is considered as a tooth in the adjacent sextant and subject to the rules for that sextant. If the single tooth is an index tooth, then the worst index tooth score is recorded.

Choice of age groups While applying the CPITN, the WHO standard are grouping should be used, i.e. single years to 19 but including a group 15 19 years then 20 24 years, 25

29years, 30 34 years, 35 44 years, 45 54 years, 55 64 years and 75 84 years and over. It is recommended that age groups 15 19 (or 15 years), 35 44 years and 65 74 years be the age groups for data collection for international comparison and for planning and monitoring.

Where resources allow, or if a high prevalence of disease appears present at an early age, examination of age groups 7 11 years and 12 -14 years may be justified.

Calculation of CPITN The CPITN for a population group can be calculated as follows:

Step 1: Count the number of charts with different codes and add up the codes individually (i.e. codes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)

Step 2: To obtain the prevalence (percentage) of subjects with codes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 as their score, divide the counts of codes respectively, by the total number of dentate subjects examined and multiply by 100. To obtain the mean number of sextants (MNS) for each condition per person, divide the total number of sextants with highest score for the person by the number of dentate subjects examined.

Modifications of CPITN Besides the slight changes to the CPITN since it was first described, there have been very few changes to the index for epidemiological and public health purposes.

Utilization of CPITN recordings The CPITN is designed for rapid and practical assessment of various periodontal treatment needs in population surveys and for initial screening of

patients attending for regular dental care. For patients requiring oral hygiene instruction and scaling only, the CPITN recordings are sufficient for treatment planning.

However, a finding of the need for complex treatment necessitates a more precise identification of the teeth and tooth surfaces affected before starting the actual therapy required by the individual patient.

The time needed for the CPITN in recording the codes for the six segments should not exceed 1 2 minutes.

Community Periodontal index This index is based on a modification of the earlier used CPITN. The modification is done by the inclusion of measurement of Loss of attachment and elimination of the Treatment Needs category.

Indicators:- Three indicators of periodontal status are used for this assessment; gingival bleeding, calculus and periodontal pockets.

For this CPITN C probe is used.

Procedure: The mouth is divided into sextants as in the case of CPITN. A sextant should be examined only if there are two or more teeth present which are not indicated for extraction. (Note: this replaces the former instruction to include single remaining tooth in the adjacent sextant).

Index teeth: For adults aged 20 years and over, the teeth to be examined are: 17, 16, 11, 26, 27

47, 46, 41, 36, 37

The two molars in each posterior sextant are paired for recording and, if one is missing, there is no replacement. If no index teeth or tooth is present in a sextant qualifying for examination, all the remaining teeth in that sextant are examined and the highest score is recorded as the score for the sextant.

In this case, distal surfaces of third molars should not be scored. For subjects under the age of 20 years, only six index teeth 16, 11, 26, 36, 31 and 46 are examined. This modification is made in order to avoid scoring the deepened sulci associated with eruption as periodontal pockets. For the same reason, when children under the age of 15 are examined, pockets should not be recorded i.e., only bleeding and calculus should be considered.

The probing for sensing gingival pockets and calculus is same as for CPITN.

Examination and recording

Navy Periodontal Disease Index (NPDI) The NPDI was introduced by Grossman F D and Fedi P F in 1974, as a part of their Navy Periodontal Screening Examination (NSPE)

The NPDI has two parts: 1.A gingival score which assesses inflammation as determined by colour, consistency, dentisty, enlargement and bleeding; and 2.A pocket score which measures tissue destruction as determined by pocket depth.

Method The gingival and pocket score is done on six selected teeth. The six selected teeth are:- (according to FDI notation) 16, 21, 24,

36, 41, 44

The gingival scores are determined by examining the gingival tissues and the pocket scores by probing sulcular or pocket depth. The gingival examination is for colour, consistency, contour and bleeding.

The pocket examination includes six probing measurements of the depth of the gingival sulcus or pocket on each of the six designated teeth using a calibrated probe.

These measurements are taken on the mesial, middle and distal areas ofboth facial and lingual surfaces. The mesial and distal areas are measured at the facial and lingual line angles. The greatest single measurement determines the pocket score for the tooth.

If any of the selected posterior tooth is missing, substitute the next most posteriortooth and if the central incisor is missing substitute the nearest incisor in the samearch.

Scoring Criteria 0 Gingival tissue is of normal colour, has firm consistency, and no exudate is present. 1 Inflammatory changes are present, but do not completely encircle the tooth. Changes may include, any colour change, loss of normal dentisty and consistency, slight enlargement and/or blunting of papilla or gingiva and tendency to bleed on palpation.

2 - Inflammatory changes completely encircling the tooth.

Pocket Score 0 pocket depth not over 3 mm

5-pocket depth greater than 3mm but less than 5mm

8 pocket depth greater than 5mm

Calculation of NPDI score Gingival & pocket scores added & divided by no of index teeth.

References Flemming TF. Periodontitis. Ann Periodontol 1999, 4: 32-38 Beck JD, Etler JR. Analysis strategies for longitudinal attachment loss data. CDOE 2000, 28: 1-9 Russell AL. A system of classification and scoring for prevalence surveys of periodontal disease. J Dent Res 1956, 35: 350-359 Dunning J, Leach LB. Gingival Bone Count: A method for epidemiological study of periodontal disease. J Dent Res 1960 39: 506513 Cutress TW, Ainamo J, Sardo Infirri J. The community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) procedure for population groups and individual Hunt R, Fann S. Effect of examining half the teeth in a partial periodontal recording of older adults. J Dent Res 1991, 70: 1380-85 Nasi JH. Background to , and implementation of, the Periodontal Screening and Recording procedure in the USA. Int Dent J 1994, 44: 58588 Dhingra K, Vandana KL. Indices for measuring periodontitis: a literature review. Int dent J 2011: 61: 76-84 Peter s. Essentials of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2nd edition. Arya Publishing house. Carranza. Clinical Peiodontology. 10th edition WHO Oral Health Surveys