Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 21;194(3):380–390. doi: 10.1111/cei.13205

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study subjects

HC (n = 13) CP (n = 15) AP (n = 15) anova P‐valuea
Age, mean years (range) 36·8 (20–63) 42·1 (36–58)# 30·5 (19–36)# P < 0·001
Gender Male, n (%) 6 (46) 7 (47) 8 (53) n.s.
Female, n (%) 7 (54) 8 (53) 7 (47) n.s.
Number of teeth, mean 28·7 28·1 28·7 n.s.
PPD, mean ± s.d. mm 1·73 ± 0·24 3·53 ± 0·69*** 3·19 ± 0·78*** P < 0·0001
BOP, mean ± s.d. % 10·9 ± 7·0 32·1 ± 14·9* 34·2 ± 30·9** P < 0·01
% sites of PPD > 5 mm 0 ± 0 29·5 ± 12·8*** 23·4 ± 16·6*** P < 0·0001
PISA, median (IQR) mm2 91 (42–136) 643 (337–906)*** 255 (137–1336)*** P < 0·0001

AP = aggressive periodontitis patients; BOP = bleeding on probing; CP = chronic periodontitis patients; GI = gingivitis patients; HC = periodontally healthy controls; PISA = periodontal inflamed surface area; PPD = probing pocket depth. Data were tested for normality using D’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality testing and where not normally distributed data were log10‐transformed prior to analysis. Data were analysed by one‐way analysis of variance (anova) and the overall P‐value shown as a. Individual groups were compared to healthy control (HC) values by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test for parametric data, and significant differences indicated as *P < 0·05; **P < 0·01; ***P < 0·001. Significant differences between CP and AP groups are indicated as # P < 0·05; n.s. = not significant.