To find a representative method of partial mouth recording for Russell's Periodontal Index, the eleven methods of partial recording were compared using the data from 362 male subjects aged 15 to 21 years.
The eleven methods were three kinds of half-mouth methods, six kinds of selected six-tooth methods and two kinds of anterior segment examination methods. The half-mouth methods were right side unilateral recording, left side unilateral recording, and alternating bilateral recording recommended by the WHO for dental caries survey. The six teeth of the selected six-tooth methods were and . The anterior segment methods were recording of both upper and lower segments and recording of the upper segment only.
In the statistical analysis of the difference between the values of the original whole-mouth method and the partial-mouth methods, all of the half-mouth methods and the Ramfjord's six-tooth method gave values which were not significantly different from the original method, but the values of other methods were different (Table 5).
In the study of the correlation between whole-mouth and partial-mouth methods, the correlation coefficient of alternating bilateral method was highest and was lowered in following order: left side method, right side method, modified Ramfjord's six-tooth method permitting the substitution of a missed first molar by a next second molar, Ramfjord's six-tooth method, other six-tooth methods, and anterior segment methods (Table 6). From the statistical comparison of the correlation coefficients, the estimates for all half-mouth methods were significantly higher than other partial recording methods and the estimates for anterior segment methods were also significantly lower than all other methods (Table 7).
It was concluded that the alternating bilateral half-mouth method was the best partial recording for the Russell's Periodontal Index in spite of its requiring the longest time, and that the Ramfjord's six-tooth method and the modified method permitting the substitution of a missed first molar by a next second molar were relatively good because there was no great difference from the value of the original method and much time was saved.
View full abstract