Table 3.
Comparison of the oral status in the case and in the control group
| Case | Control | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Periodontal stage (%) | I | 0 | 8 | 0.00 |
| II | 0 | 17 | ||
| III | 14 | 4 | ||
| IV | 47 | 2 | ||
| CAL (mm) | 6.2 ± 1.3 | 2.8 ± 1.1 | 0.00 | |
| PPD (mm) | 5.6 ± 1.3 | 2.5 ± 1.1 | 0.00 | |
| BOP (%) | 44.9 ± 30.4 | 31.4 ± 23.2 | 0.09 | |
| SLPI | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 0.00 | |
| DMFT index | 21.65 ± 8.46 | 14.18 ± 8.26 | 0.00 | |
The oral status of the patients in the case and the control group is compared according to periodontal stage, clinical attachment loss (CAL), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), Silness-Löe plaque index and DMFT index (decayed, missing and filled teeth). p value was calculated by chi-square tests in case of periodontal stage (%), and it was calculated by Mann–Whitney tests in all the other cases. The ‘bold’ p values show significant differences