Table.

Demographics and Clinical Parameters.

	LAP		Healthy
	Diseased (n = 60)	Healthy (n = 60)	Siblings (n = 60)	Controls (n = 60)
Age, y	13.25 ± 4.12		11.45 ± 3.61	14.07 ± 6.46
Sex, female:male	29:31		32:28	35:25
Dentition,a prim:perm	17:43	9:51	9:51	11:49
Mean PD site,b mm	6.55 ± 1.78c	2.65 ± 0.68	2.75 ± 0.68	2.73 ± 0.52
Mean CAL site,b mm	3.98 ± 1.85	NDd	NDd	NDd
PD ≥4 mm, e %	16.07 ± 10.74c		3.78 ± 5.58	4.71 ± 5.82
Affected sites,e,f n (%)	15.51 ± 12.30 (10.01 ± 8.81)c		0	0
Plaque index,e %	36.57 ± 23.87		37.02 ± 21.30	37.15 ± 25.18
BoP, %	20.28 ± 13.45		10 ± 11.28g	16.07 ± 25.86h

All participants were African Americans. Note that 2 samples were analyzed from each LAP patient (1 diseased, 1 healthy; n = 120). Values are presented as mean ± SD or n. Significance was determined by Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparisons among groups.

BoP, bleeding on probing; CAL, clinical attachment level; LAP, localized aggressive periodontitis; ND, not determined; perm, permanent; PD, pocket depth; prim, primary.

^aDentition type refers to the tooth from which the sample was collected (permanent or primary).

^bPD and CAL were calculated on sampled affected/diseased sites only.

^cP < 0.0001, compared with other groups.

^dThe cementoenamel junction in healthy sites with no recession cannot be detected; thus, CAL is either zero (as we consider it) or cannot be reliably measured.

^ePD >4 mm (pockets >4 mm), affected sites, and plaque (sites with visible plaque) were whole-mouth parameters.

^fAffected site: PD >4 mm with concomitant BoP, CAL ≥ 2, and radiographically detected bone loss.

^gP < 0.001, compared with other groups.

^hP < 0.05, compared with other groups.