ABSTRACT
Background:
Despite a huge number of advancements in the medical field, periodontitis still remains one of the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide.
Aim:
Thus, the primary aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of periodontal diseases in patients reporting to the tertiary healthcare setup in Ranchi
Materials and Methods:
Based on inclusion criteria, subjects aged 18–60 years were selected and a per forma was filled by the observer. The prevalence of periodontal disease was measured using the community periodontal index, simplified oral hygiene index, and stage of periodontitis.
Results:
Descriptive variables were assessed using frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviations, while the categorical analysis was performed using the Chi-square tests
Conclusion:
General awareness about periodontal health and regular dental visits should be given utmost importance among the rural populations of every developing country.
KEYWORDS: Attachment loss, periodontitis, prevalence, rural, tertiary health care
INTRODUCTION
A chronic inflammatory disease usually results from the tissue destruction surrounding the teeth, and periodontitis manifests itself along a number of genetic diseases involving the periodontium with destructive gingival and periodontal diseases.[1,2,3] General ignorance, minimal dental visits, illiteracy, and low socioeconomic status have been added as the major contributing factors in increasing the prevalence of periodontal diseases.[4] Considering these factors, rural areas of developing countries, including India, are deprived of adequate facilities and awareness about good oral health care, with a higher prevalence of periodontal diseases.[5] In India, the dentist-to-population ratio is less in rural areas as compared to urban areas, that is, 1:50000, making equitable distribution of primary health care an important and nondiscriminatory right.[6] Tertiary healthcare centers should thus emphasize providing awareness about Ranchi being a combined tribal state of India, and there is no adequate information about the prevalence of periodontal disease. Thus, the main aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence of periodontal disease in the Ranchi population visiting the tertiary healthcare center.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A cross-sectional study was conducted on 2000 subjects reporting to the Department of Periodontology, Dental College, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science. This institute is well known for providing tertiary healthcare facilities both in the rural and urban areas of Ranchi. A detailed per forma, including the basic demographic details and examination of clinical parameters, was prepared and filled by the observer. Patients were seated comfortably on a well-lighted dental chair, and an examination of the periodontal status of the participants was performed. The tabulated data after completion were transferred into an Excel sheet and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 20.
RESULTS
Of the 2000 study patients, a maximum of them belonged to the intermediate level (31.25%). When the socioeconomic status of the study patients was evaluated, around 31.85% were poor. On evaluation, only11.1%, that is, 222, of the total population had good oral hygiene status, 34.2% had fair oral hygiene status, and a maximum population of around 54.7% had poor oral hygiene status, irrespective of the age groups. When oral hygiene status was compared with the area of living, a total of 1648, that is, 82.4% belonged to rural areas and only 17.6% were from urban areas. The results presented a strong correlation between the two with highly statistically significant results [Table 1]. On comparing the age with the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) index, 8.6% belonged to code 0, 24.3% to code 1, 36.1% to code 2, 25.8% to code 3, and 5.2% to code 4. The results were statistically significant, presenting a strong correlation between the two. Similar correlations were found between the CPITIN index and the living areas of the study population [Table 2].
Table 1.
Representing the simplified oral hygiene index scores for different living areas
| Living area | Simplified oral hygiene index scores | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Rural (1648) | 98 (44.14) | 576 (84.21) | 974 (89.03) |
| Urban (352) | 124 (55.86) | 108 (15.79) | 120 (10.97) |
| Total | 222 (11.1) | 684 (34.2) | 1094 (54.7) |
| X2 | 258.74 | ||
| P | 0.000 | ||
Table 2.
Representing the community periodontal index of treatment needs scores for different living areas
| Living area | Community periodontal index of treatment scores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Rural (1648) | 146 (84.90) | 357 (73.45) | 560 (77.56) | 486 (94.19) | 99 (95.19) |
| Urban (352) | 26 (15.10) | 129 (26.55) | 162 (22.44) | 30 (5.81) | 5 (4.81) |
| Total | 172 (8.6) | 486 (24.3) | 722 (36.1) | 516 (25.8) | 104 (5.2) |
| X2 | 100.34 | ||||
| P | 0.000 | ||||
DISCUSSION
On evaluating the results of the study, a maximum of 54.7% of the total population had poor oral hygiene status, followed by 34.2% with fair oral hygiene status. This was similar to studies conducted by Azodo et al.[7,8,9,10,11,12] where they found that around one-third of the population had poor oral hygiene status. Bhattari et al. and Olabisi et al. in their studies confirmed the same results where a maximum of the total population had poor oral hygiene status.[13,14] In our study, a highly statistically significant result was obtained when a correlation of living area was performed with that of the oral hygiene status of the population. In rural areas, around 89.03% of them had poor oral hygiene status, which was in accordance with the study conducted by Azodo et al.[12] This was similar to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, which provided an ample amount of proof related to the prevalence of periodontitis in the United States, where around 47.2% of adults aged 30 and above were suffering from stage III periodontitis.[15] Thus, an ample amount of pieces of evidence have been in support of our studies where clearly a higher prevalence of periodontal disease was in accordance with the age, living standard, and area of the population.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of our study, it can be concluded that a maximum of the population had periodontal disease with a higher correlation with that of both age and living area. Although an increasing trend in clinic and hospital setup has been found in many urban areas, there is still a need to give more awareness about periodontal diseases and treatment needs.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.World Health Organization. The WHO Global Oral Health Data Bank. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25:284–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Fujita H. Periodontal Diseases in Jomon Peoples. The Journal of the Archaeological Society of Waseda University. 1990;107:65–76. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cutress TW. Periodontal health and periodontal disease in young people: Global epidemiology. Int Dent J. 1986;36:146–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.“Lack of hygiene and awareness plagues the dental health of rural people of Punjab.”. [[Last accessed on 2010 Apr 03]]. Available from: http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/599388/
- 6.Coelho Rde S, Gusmão ES, Jovino-Silveira RC, Caldas Ade F. Profile of periodontal conditions in a Brazilian adult population. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2008;6:139–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kirch W, editor. Encyclopedia of Public Health. Springer; Dordrecht: 2008. Tertiary Dental Care. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_3473. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, Chapple ILC, Jepsen S, Kornman KS, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions-Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S1–8. doi: 10.1002/JPER.18-0157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dhami B, Thapaliya KB, Shrestha DK, Bhandari B, Gupta S. Periodontal disease in patients visiting a tertiary care dental hospital: A descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021;59:384–91. doi: 10.31729/jnma.6463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Batra M, Tangade P, Gupta D. Assessment of periodontal health among the rural population of Moradabad, India. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent. 2014;12:28–32. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Khiste S, Gupta B, Ramachandran N, Ranade N, Patrawala A, Shaikh S, et al. Prevalence of periodontal disease in rural population of Raigad district of Maharashtra?: A cross-sectional study. J Dent Specialities. 2017;224:119–21. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Azodo CC, Amenaghawon OP. Oral hygiene status and practices among rural dwellers. euroPean Journal oF general denTisTrY. 2013;2:42–5. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bhattarai R, Khanal S, Rao GN, Dhami B, Gupta S. Oral hygiene and periodontal health status of urban population of Kathmandu district: A pilot study. J Nepal Soc Perio Oral Implantol. 2017;1:12–6. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Olabisi AA, Udo UA, Ehimen UG, Bashiru BO, Gbenga OO, Adeniyi AO. Prevalence of dental caries and oral hygiene status of a screened population in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5:59–63. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.151979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Eke PI, Dye BA, Wei L, Thornton-Evans GO, Genco RJ. CDC Periodontal Disease Surveillance workgroup: James Beck (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA), Gordon Douglass (Past President, American Academy of Periodontology), Roy Page (University of Washin. Prevalence of periodontitis in adults in the United States: 2009 and 2010. J Dent Res. 2012;91:914–20. doi: 10.1177/0022034512457373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]