Premium
Bias in estimating the cross‐sectional smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes associations with moderate‐severe periodontitis in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study: comparison of full versus partial‐mouth estimates
Author(s) -
Akinkugbe Aderonke A.,
Saraiya Veeral M.,
Preisser John S.,
Offenbacher Steven,
Beck James D.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/jcpe.12425
Subject(s) - periodontitis , medicine , confounding , national health and nutrition examination survey , odds ratio , logistic regression , diabetes mellitus , confidence interval , cross sectional study , obesity , odds , clinical attachment loss , gingival and periodontal pocket , dentistry , environmental health , pathology , population , endocrinology
Objective To assess whether partial‐mouth protocols ( PRP s) result in biased estimates of the associations between smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes with periodontitis. Methods Using a sample ( n = 6129) of the 1996–1998 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study, we used measures of probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level to identify moderate‐severe periodontitis. Adjusting for confounders, unconditional binary logistic regression estimated prevalence odds ratios ( POR ) and 95% confidence limits. Specifically, we compared POR for smoking, alcohol, obesity and diabetes with periodontitis derived from full‐mouth to those derived from 4‐ PRP s (Ramfjörd, National Health and Nutrition Examination survey‐ III , modified‐ NHANES ‐ IV and 42‐site‐Random‐site selection‐method). Finally, we conducted a simple sensitivity analysis of periodontitis misclassification by changing the case definition threshold for each PRP . Results In comparison to full‐mouth POR s, PRP POR s were biased in terms of magnitude and direction. Holding the full‐mouth case definition at moderate‐severe periodontitis and setting it at mild‐moderate‐severe for the PRP s did not consistently produce POR estimates that were either biased towards or away from the null in comparison to full‐mouth estimates. Conclusions Partial‐mouth protocols result in misclassification of periodontitis and may bias epidemiologic measures of association. The magnitude and direction of this bias depends on choice of PRP and case definition threshold used.