Method: Following ethics approval a scenario-based questionnaire was placed online in the “Members only” section of the ADAVB website for general dental practitioners (GDP) to complete. They were asked a series of demographic questions including the year and place of graduation, type of practice, number of practitioners and post graduate training including recent continuing dental education in periodontics. Five text-based clinical scenarios from a total of 10 were randomly presented and corresponded to periodontal health/gingivitis (2), mild periodontitis (2), moderate periodontitis (2), severe periodontitis (2) and recurrent periodontitis occurring at a single (1) and multiple sites (1). The respondents were asked what examinations are typical and customary to be performed in response to the scenario. Based upon the results of the periodontal and radiographic examinations a periodontal diagnosis was requested.
Result: 135 GDPs attempted the survey. Most were in a group practice and based in Melbourne. Most had completed no formal advanced training. 22.5% of respondents worked in a practice that employed a hygienist. The clinical parameters most commonly measured to diagnose periodontal disease were pocket depth and mobility, closely followed by bleeding-on-probing, suppuration and furcation involvement. The majority of respondents diagnosed health, gingivitis and mild periodontitis correctly compared to the American Academy of Periodontology guidelines. However, moderate periodontitis tended to be diagnosed as severe. There was no effect of age, gender, year or place of qualification, type of practice, postgraduate training or CPD on the outcomes.
Conclusion: GDP in Victoria use the appropriate clinical parameters in their assessment of periodontal disease and are accurate in their diagnoses. However, the over diagnosis of severe periodontitis may lead to inappropriate treatment or referral.