# Periodontal Disease Diagnosis in the Context of Oral Rehabilitation Approaches
## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)**-Value**} \\
**Parameter** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 390)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 195)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 195)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 195)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)**-Value**} \\  & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** & **n** & **\%** & \\ \hline Gender & & & & & & & 1.000 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ M & 140 & 3.9 & 70 & 35.9\% & 70 & 35.9\% & & \\ F & 250 & 64.1 & 125 & 64.1\% & 125 & 64.1\% & & \\ Age group & & & & & & & 0.919 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\
20–29 yrs & 43 & 11.0\% & 21 & 10.8\% & 22 & 11.3\% & & \\
30–39 yrs & 45 & 11.5\% & 20 & 10.3\% & 25 & 12.8\% & & \\
40–49 yrs & 63 & 16.2\% & 33 & 16.9\% & 30 & 15.4\% & & \\
50–59 yrs & 94 & 2.1\% & 46 & 23.6\% & 48 & 24.6\% & & \\
60–69 yrs & 145 & 37.2\% & 75 & 38.5\% & 70 & 35.9\% & & \\ Subgingival tartar & & & & & & & 0.919 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ absent & 221 & 56.7\% & 110 & 56.4\% & 111 & 56.9\% & & \\ present & 169 & 43.3\% & 85 & 43.6\% & 84 & 43.1\% & & \\ Gingival recession & & & & & & & 0.463 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ absent & 245 & 62.8\% & 119 & 61.0\% & 126 & 64.6\% & & \\ present & 145 & 37.2\% & 76 & 39.0\% & 69 & 35.4\% & & \\ Periodantal pockets & & & & & & & 0.059 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ absent & 144 & 36.9\% & 81 & 41.5\% & 63 & 32.3\% & & \\ present & 246 & 63.1\% & 114 & 58.5\% & 132 & 67.7\% & & \\ Dental mobility & & & & & & & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\ddagger}\) \\
0 & 179 & 45.9\% & 106 & 54.4\% & 73 & 37.4\% & & \\
1 & 123 & 31.5\% & 63 & 32.3\% & 60 & 30.8\% & & \\
2 & 66 & 16.9\% & 23 & 11.8\% & 43 & 22.1\% & & \\
3 & 22 & 5.6\% & 3 & 1.5\% & 19 & 9.7\% & & \\ Plaque index PI (m \(\pm\) SD) & 0.354 \(\pm\) 0.252 & & 0.376 \(\pm\) 0.248 & 0.333 \(\pm\) 0.258 & 0.085 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ Bleeding index BI (m \(\pm\) SD) & 0.361 \(\pm\) 0.247 & & 0.479 \(\pm\) 0.228 & 0.244 \(\pm\) 0.206 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\ddagger}\) \\ Gingival index GI (m \(\pm\) SD) & 0.370 \(\pm\) 0.243 & & 0.466 \(\pm\) 0.208 & 0.275 \(\pm\) 0.239 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\ddagger}\) \\ PDP index (m \(\pm\) SD) & 2.630 \(\pm\) 0.191 & & 2.522 \(\pm\) 0.212 & 2.722 \(\pm\) 0.102 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{\star\ddagger}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\ddagger}\) Pearson chi-squared test; \({}^{\ddagger}\) Mann–Whitney test; \({}^{\star\ddagger}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.01 highly statistically significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Demographic parameters of the sample. For evaluation, we correlated the prevalence of subgingival tartar deposits with the clinical symptoms that are characteristic of periodontal disease and with the demographic parameters of the samples, at the level of the entire patient lot and comparative in the study and control groups (Table 2). No statistically significant differences were observed between genders in the presence of subgingival calculus. The study by age group shows statistically significant differences, both at the level of the whole group and separately by subgroups, with patients with tartar belonging mainly to the age group over 60 years. Furthermore, patients with tartar also showed significantly increased percentages of gingival recession (both overall, 62.1%, and separated by sublots, 62.4%, and 61.9%, respectively), periodontal pockets (overall, 82.2% and separated by sublots, 87.1%, and 77.4%, respectively), and tooth mobility (grade 1 in the study group, 52.9%, and grade 1, 26.2%, and grade 2, 28.6%, in the control group). The plaque index was significantly higher overall in patients with tartar compared to the others (0.416 \(\pm\) 0.293 compared to 0.307 \(\pm\) 0.204), a difference that was also found separately in the two samples but was more attenuated in the study group (0.386 \(\pm\) 0.253 compared to 0.368 \(\pm\) 0.244) and accentuated in the control group (0.446 \(\pm\) 0.328 compared to 0.248 \(\pm\) 0.130). A similar behaviour was observed for the bleeding index and the gingival index.