preprints.org > medicine and pharmacology > dentistry and oral surgery > doi: 10.20944/preprints202408.1646.v1 (registering DOI)

Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Version 1 : Received: 21 August 2024 / Approved: 22 August 2024 / Online: 22 August 2024 (15:06:34 CEST)

Objectives: The goal of this pilot study was to validate and introduce a new AI tool (algorithm), providing and comparing (1) the periodontal/peri-implant diagnosis between professional (specialist) and automated tool, (2) risk assessment and prognostication with the algorithm, and (3) establish cut-off limits for clinically significant disease with a new score system (GF-PeDRA score). Methods: All patients were evaluated by two evaluators, and in case of any divergence, the case was revisited and discussed until clarification and definition. The validation sample constituted 221 patients. The AI tool (GF-PeDRA©) had eighteen parameters to be assessed, involving systemic and local predictors, achieving an octadecagon (an eighteen-sided polygon). The parameters were: (1) The highest probing depth (PD); (2) Number of interproximal sites with bone loss; (3) The highest clinical attachment loss (CAL); (4) Maximum radiographic bone loss (RBL); (5) Bleeding on probing (% BoP); (6) Bone loss pattern; (7) Tooth loss including periodontally hopeless teeth planned for extraction; (8) Evidence of progression over five years; (9) Need for complex rehabilitation; (10) Patient’s age; (11) CAL and biofilm accumulation; (12) Smoking; (13) Diabetes; (14) Extension and distribution of the disease; (15) Peri-implant disease; (16) Other systemic conditions (other than diabetes); (17) Furcation involvement; and (18) Necrotizing lesion. A new score system (GF-PeDRA© score) based on the percentual of the octadecagon area is obtained; if the area was ≥0% to ≤9%, the prognosis is good; ≥10% and ≤ 24%, it is fair; ≥25% and ≤37%, poor; ≥38% and ≤49%, it is questionable; and between ≥50% to ≤100%, the prognosis is hopeless. Results: 221 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 46.73. 5301 teeth were examined. 187 non-smokers (84.62%) and 34 smokers (15.38%) were included. 193 (87.33%) patients did not have diabetes, whereas 28 (12.67%) had. Comparing the diagnosis between both evaluators, k=0.83; all disagreed cases were re-discussed, and a final decision/diagnosis was reached. After this, the diagnosis found was contrasted with the diagnosis achieved by GF-PeDRA© and a perfect agreement was observed, 100% (k=1.0). 28 patients were diagnosed as periodontally healthy, 55 with plaque-induced gingivitis, and 138 with periodontitis. Only one case of molar/incisor pattern was observed. No peri-implant disease or necrotizing condition was found. The mean CAL found was 3.19 mm; 25 patients (11.31%) had a furcation involvement. The mean percentual of BoP found was 28.67% (median = 19%; maximum: 100%; minimum: 100%); and the mean PD was 5.31 mm. The mean of the new GF-PeDRA© score (ranging from 0% to 100%) was 28.64%, with a median of 32.2% (minimum: 0.6% and maximum: 64.1%). Then, analyzing the GF-PeDRA© score of 221 patients enrolled, 48 (21.73%) were sorted as a Good prognosis for periodontal treatment, 43 (19.45%) had a Fair prognosis, 43 (19.45%) had a Poor prognosis, 68 (30.77%) had a Questionable prognosis, and 19 (8.60%) had a Hopeless prognosis. Conclusion: The new AI tool (GF-PeDRA©) was validated and proved to be extremely helpful in diagnosing and providing risk assessment and prognosis.

risk assessment; periodontics; periodontal assessment; prognosis; diagnosis; artificial intelligence; algorithm; periodontology

Medicine and Pharmacology, Dentistry and Oral Surgery

* All users must log in before leaving a comment