GOOD

MORNING
1
 PERIODONTAL
INDICES

GUIDED BY:
DR. NAVRAJ LAMDARI
DR. LAL BABU KAMAIT
DEPARTMENT OF
SUBMITTED BY: PERIODONTICS
SHEKHAR KUMAR COLLEGE OF MEDICAL
2
MANDAL SCIENCES, BHARATPUR
Roll no: 26 NEPAL
BDS IV
 CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS
CLASSIFICATION OF INDEX
IDEAL REQUISITES OF AN INDEX
OBJECTIVES AND USES OF INDEX
ORAL HYGIENE AND PLAQUE INDEX
GINGIVAL AND PERIODONTAL DISEASE INDICES
RECENT ADVANCES IN PERIODONTAL INDICES
CONCLUSION
3

REFERENCES
 INTRODUCTION

UNLESS YOU CAN COUNT IT, WEIGH IT OR EXPRESS IT IN A QUANTITATIVE

FASHION, YOU HAVE SCARCELY BEGUN TO THINK ABOUT THE DISEASE IN A

SCIENTIFIC FASHION

-LORD KELVIN

4
 DEFINITIONS
According to Russell A.L , an index is defined as A
numerical value describing the relative status of the
population on a graduated scale with definite upper and
lower limits which is designed to permit and facilitate
comparison with other population classified with the same
criteria and the method

Epidemiological indices are attempts to quantitate

clinical condition on graduated scale, thereby facilitating
comparison among populations examined by the same5
criteria and methods. Irving Glickman
An index is an expression of clinical observation in
numeric values. It is used to describe the status of the
individual or group with respect to a condition being
measured. The use of numeric scale and a standardized
method for interpreting observations of a condition results
in an index score that is more consistent and less
subjective than a word description of that condition.
Esther M Wilkins

6
 IDEAL REQUISITES OF AN INDEX
SPECIFICI CLARITY SIMPLICIT
TY Y

QUANTIF
IABI
LITY
IDEAL OBJECTIVI
REQUISITES TY
OF INDEX

ACCEPTABI
LITY

VALIDITY
SENSITIVI RELIABILI
TY TY 7
 OBJECTIVES
FOR INDIVIDUAL IN RESEARCH IN COMMUNITY

PATIENT Determine base line data Shows prevalence and

Recognize an oral before experimental incidence of a condition

problem
factors are introduced Assess the need of the
Effectiveness of present
Measure the community
oral hygiene practices
effectiveness of specific Compare the effects of a
Motivation in preventive
agents for prevention community program and
and professional care for
control or treatment of evaluate the results
control and elimination of 8

diseases oral condition

 CLASSIFICATION OF INDEX
Based on the direction in which their
scores can fluctuate:

9
 Depending upon the extent to which
areas of oral cavity are measured :

10
According to the entity which they
measure

11
General indices :

12
 INDICES USED FOR ORAL HYGIENE
ASSESSMENT

Oral hygiene index

Simplified oral hygiene index

Patient hygiene performance

Turesky, Gilmore, Glickman modification of the Quigley

Hein plaque index 13
 ORAL HYGIENE INDEX (OHI)
Developed in 1960 by John C. Green and Jack R. Vermillion
in order to classify and assess oral hygiene status.

Simple and sensitive method for assessing group or

individual oral hygiene quantitatively.

Composed of 2 components:

Debris index (DI)

Calculus index (CI)

14
 RULES OF ORAL HYGIENE INDEX
1 Only fully erupted permanent
teeth are scored.
2 Third molars and incompletely
erupted teeth are not scored
because of the wide variations in
heights of clinical crowns.
3 The buccal and lingual debris
scores are both taken on the
tooth in a segment having the
greatest surface area covered by
debris.
4 The buccal and lingual calculus
scores are both taken on the
tooth in a segment having 15 the
greatest surface area covered by
supragingival and subgingival
DEBRIS INDEX CRITERIA 0 No debris or
stain
present
1 Soft debris
covering
not more than 1/3rd
the
tooth surface, or
presence
of extrinsic stains
2 Soft debris
without
covering
other debris
more than
regardless 1/3 rd
,
but
of not
the area covered
more than 2/3rd,of
3 Soft debris
the
covering more
exposed tooth
than 2/3
surface
rd
of the
exposed
 CALCULUS INDEX CRITERIA
SCORE CRITERIA
0 No calculus present

1 Supragingival calculus covering not

more than 1/3 of the exposed tooth
surface

2 Supragingival calculus covering more

than 1/3 but not more than 2/3 the
exposed tooth surface or presence of
individual flecks of subgingival
calculus around the cervical portion of
the tooth or both.
3 Supragingival calculus covering more
than 2/3 the exposed tooth surface or
a continuous heavy band of
Supragingival
Subgingival subgingival calculus around the 17
calculus calculus cervical portion of tooth or both.
 CALCULATION
Debris Index (DI) =( Buccal Score+ Lingual Score) / NO. OF SEG

Calculus Index (CI) =( Buccal Score+ Lingual Score) / NO. OF SEG

Oral Hygiene Index= DI+CI

DI and CI range from 0-6

Maximum score for all segments can be 36 for debris or calculus

OHI range from 0-12

Higher the OHI, poorer is the oral hygiene of patient

18
 SIMPLIFIED ORAL HYGIENE INDEX
Developed by John C Greene and Jack R Vermillion in
1964 as OHI was time consuming and required more
decision making

Only fully erupted permanent teeth are scored

Natural teeth with full crown restorations and surfaces

reduced in height by caries or trauma are not scored
19

An alternate tooth is then examined if missing

Surfaces and tooth to Substitution
examined
16 17,18

11 21

26 27,28

36 37,38

31 41

46 47,48 20
 CALCULATION INTERPRETATION
DI S = Total score/No
of surfaces DI S and CI-S
Good -0.0-0.6
Fair 0.7-1.8
CI-S = Total score/ No Poor 1.9 -3.0
of surfaces
OHI S
Good - 0.0-1.2
OHI -S= DI-S+ CI-S Fair 1.3- 3.0
Poor 3.0 -6.0 21
 USES
Widely used in epidemiological studies of periodontal
diseases.

Useful in evaluation of dental health education programs

Evaluating the efficacy of tooth brushes.

Evaluate an individuals level of oral cleanliness.

 PATIENT HYGIENE PERFORMANCE (PHP)
INDEX
Introduced by Podshadley A.G. and Haley JV in 1968.
Assessments are based on 6 index teeth.
The extent of plaque and debris over a tooth surface was
determined.
16 Buccal
11 Labial
26 Buccal
36 Lingual
31 Labial 23

46 Lingual
Procedure:
Apply a disclosing agent before scoring.
Patient is asked to swish for 30 sec and then expectorate but not
rinse.
Examination is made by using a mouth mirror.

M
MI
M
D O/I

Each of the 5 subdivisions is scored for presence of stained debris:

0= No debris(or questionable)
1= Debris definitely present.
24
 Debris score for individual tooth:
Add the scores for each of the 5 subdivisions.

PHP index for an individual= (Total score for all the

teeth /the number of teeth examined)

Rating scores 1
Excellent : 0 (no 1 1 1
debris)
Good : 0.1- 0
1.7
Fair : 1.8 Debris score for 1
tooth = 4/5
 PLAQUE INDEX
Silness and Loe in 1964 12

Assesses only thickness of plaque at 24

16
the cervical margin of the tooth closest
to the gums

All four surfaces are examined

Distal

Mesial 36

44
Lingual
32
Buccal
 SCORING CRITERIA
Score Criteria
0 No Plaque
A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival
margin and adjacent area of tooth the plaque
1 may be seen in situ only after application of
disclosing solution or by using probe on tooth
surface
Moderate accumulation of soft deposits
within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and
2
gingival margin which can be seen with the
naked eye
Abundance of soft matter within the gingival
3 pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival
27
margin
 CALCULATION INTERPRETA
Plaque index for
area
0-3 for each surface TION
Rating Scores
Plaque index for Scores added and then divided by Excellen 0
a tooth four
t
Plaque index for Scores for individual teeth are
group of teeth added and then divided by number
of teeth.
Good 0.1-0.9
Plaque index for Indices for each of the teeth are
the individual added and then divided by the
total number of teeth examined Fair 1.0-1.9
Plaque index for All indices are taken and divided by
group number of individual
Poor 2.0-3.0
28
 USES

Reliable technique for evaluating both mechanical anti

plaque procedures and chemical agents

Used in longitudinal studies and clinical trials

29
ADVANTAGE
Good validity and reproducibility
Can be used as full mouth or simplified

DRAWBACK
Subjectivity in estimating plaque

30
Turesky, Gilmore, Glickman modification
of the Quigley-Hein plaque index
Quigley and Hein in 1962 reported a plaque measurement
that focused on the gingival third of the tooth surface.

Only facial surfaces of the anterior teeth were examined

after using basic fuchsin mouthwash as a disclosing agent.

Quigley - Hein plaque index was modified by Turesky,

Gilmore and Glickman in 1970. 31
SCO CRITERIA
RE
0 No plaque
1 Separate flecks of plaque at
the cervical margin of tooth
2 Thin continuous band of
plaque ( up to 1 mm
3 Band of plaque wider than 1
mm but covering less than
1/3rd of the crown of the
tooth.
4 Plaque covering at least
1/3rd but less than 2/3rd of
the crown of the tooth 32

5 Plaque covering 2/3rd or

 Plaque is assessed on the labial, buccal and lingual
surfaces of all the teeth after using a disclosing agent.

The scores of the gingival 1/3rd area was also redefined.

Provides a comprehensive method for evaluating anti

plaque procedures such as tooth brushing, flossing as
well as chemical anti plaque agents.

The index is based on a numerical score of 0 to 5

33
 OLEARY INDEX
(plaque control record)
O' leary T, Drake R, Naylor in1972
Method of recording the presence of the plaque
on individual tooth surfaces
Suitable disclosing solution such as Bismarck
brown, Diaplac or similar is painted on all
exposed tooth surfaces..
The operator (using an explorer or a tip of a
probe) examines each stained surface for soft
accumulations at the dentogingival junction.
When found, they are recorded by making a
dash/red colour in the appropriate spaces on the
 Calculation
PLAQUE INDEX =The number of plaque
containing surfaces
The total number of
available surfaces
Since plaque is stained ,identification
and record making is easy
Also aids in patient education

wback
ds only the presence or absence of plaque
 BLEEDING POINT INDEX
Provides an evaluation of gingival inflammation
around each tooth in patients mouth
Bleeding on probing recorded on distal ,facial
,mesial and gingival surface
Calculation=(no of bleeding surface/total no of
tooth surface)*100
Demonstrates gingival inflammation characterized
by gingival bleeding rather than presence of
GINGIVAL AND PERIODONTAL
DISEASE INDICES
GINGIVAL INDEX

PERIODONTAL INDEX

CPITN

COMMUNITY PERIODONTAL INDEX

37
 GINGIVAL INDEX
Developed by Loe and Silness in 1963.

One of the most widely accepted and used gingival indices.

Assess the severity of gingivitis and its location in 4 possible

areas.
Mesial

Lingual

Distal

Facial 38

:
METHOD
All surfaces of all teeth or selected teeth or selected surface of all
teeth or selected teeth are scored.

The selected teeth as the index teeth are 16,12,24,36,32,44.

The teeth and gingiva are first dried with a blast of air and/or cotton
rolls.

The tissues are divided into 4 gingival scoring units: Disto facial
papilla, Facial margin, Mesio facial papilla and Entire lingual margin.

A blunt periodontal probe is used to assess the bleeding potential of

the tissues.
39
SCORE CRITERIA

Absence of
0 inflammation/normal gingiva
Mild inflammation, slight
change in color, slight
1 edema, no bleeding on
probing
Moderate inflammation,
moderate glazing, redness,
2 edema and hypertrophy.
bleeding on probing
Severe inflammation,
marked redness and
3 hypertrophy ulceration.
40
 CALCULATION AND INTERPRETATION
If the scores around each tooth are INTERPRETATION:
totaled and divided by the number 0.1 - 1.0 : mild
of surfaces per tooth examined (4), gingivitis
the gingival index score for the 1.1 2.0 : moderate
tooth is obtained. gingivitis
Totaling all of the scores per tooth 2.1 3.0 : severe

and dividing by the number of gingivitis

teeth examined provides the

gingival index score for individual. 41
 MODIFIED GINGIVAL INDEX

Developed by Lobene, Weatherford, Ross, Lamm and Menaker

in 1986.

Assess the prevalence and severity of gingivitis.

Strictly based on non invasive approach i.e. visual examination

only without any probing.

To obtain MGI , labial and lingual surfaces of the gingival

margins and the interdental papilla of all erupted teeth except
42

3rd molars are examined and scored.

SCORE CRITERIA

43
 RUSELLS PERIODONTAL INDEX

Developed by Rusell AI in 1956.

It was once widely used in epidemiological surveys but

not used much now because of introduction of new
periodontal indices and refinement of criteria.

The RPI is reported to be useful among large populations,

but it is of limited use for individuals or small groups.

44
 METHOD
All the teeth are examined in this index.

Russell chose the scoring values as 0,1,2,4,6,8 in order

to relate the stage of the disease in an epidemiological

survey to the clinical conditions observed.

The Russells rule states that when in doubt assign the

lower score.
45
 FIELD STUDIES CLINICAL STUDIES /
RADIOGRAPHIC FINDINGS
0 Negative. Neither overt Radiographic appearance is essentially
inflammation in the investing normal.
tissues nor loss of function due
to destruction of supporting
bone.
1 Mild gingivitis. An overt area of
inflammation in the free gingiva
does not circumscribe the tooth
2 Gingivitis. Inflammation
completely circumscribe the
tooth, but there is no apparent
break in the epithelial
attachment
4 Used only when radiographs are There is early notch like resorption of
available. alveolar crest.
6 Gingivitis with pocket formation. There is horizontal bone loss involving the
The epithelial attachment is entire alveolar crest, up to half of the length
46
broken and there is a pocket. of the tooth root.
There is no interference with
 CALCULATION AND INTERPRETATION
RPI score per person = Sum of individual scores
No of teeth present

Clinical Condition Individual Scores

Clinical normally supportive 0.0-0.2
tissue
Simple gingivitis 0.3-0.9
Beginning destructive 1.0-1.9
periodontal diseases
Established destructive 2.0-4.9
periodontal disease 47

Terminal disease 5.0-8.0

 COMMUNITY PERIODONTAL INDEX OF
TREATMENT NEEDS
The community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN) was
introduced by JUKKA AINAMO for joint working committee of the WHO and
FDI in 1982.

Developed primarily to survey and evaluate periodontal treatment needs

rather than determining past and present periodontal status i.e. recession
of the gingival margin and alveolar bone.

Treatment needs implies that the CPITN assesses only those conditions
potentially responsive to treatment, but not non treatable or irreversible
conditions. 48
Procedure :
The mouth is divided into sextants :
17- 14 13- 23 24- 27
47 44 43- 33 34 37

The 3rd molars are not included, except where they are functioning in
place of 2nd molars.

The treatment need in a sextant is recorded only if there are 2 or

more teeth present in a sextant and not indicated for extraction.

If only one tooth remains in a sextant, then the tooth is included in

the adjoining sextant.

49
Probing depth is recorded either on all the teeth in a
sextant or only on certain indexed teeth as recommended
by who for epidemiological surveys.

For adults aged > 20 yrs:

10 index teeth are taken into account :17 16 11 26 37

47 46 31 36 37.
The molars are examined in pairs and only one score
the highest score is recorded. 50
For young people up to 19 yrs:

Only 6 index teeth are examined : 16 11 26 46 31 36

The second molars are excluded at these ages because

of the high frequency of false pockets (non
inflammatory tooth eruption associated).
When examining children less than 15 yrs, pockets are
not recorded although probing for bleeding and
calculus are carried out as a routine.
51
 CPITN probe
First described by WHO.

Designed for 2 purposes :

measurement of pockets.

detection of sub-gingival calculus.

Weighs : 5 gms

Working force: 20-25 gms

CPITN-E CPITN-C 52

PROBE PROBE
COD CRITERIA TREATMENT
E NEEDS
0 Healthy TN-0 No need of
periodontium treatment
1 Bleeding observed TN-1 Self care
during / after
probing
2 Calculus or other TN-2 Professional
plaque retentive care
factors seen or felt
during probing
3 Pathological pocket TN-2 Scaling and
4-5 mm. gingival root planning
margin situated on
black band of the
probe.
4 Pathological pocket TN-3 Complex
6mm or more. Black therapy by 53

band of the probe specially

not visible trained
ADVANTAGE LIMITATIONS
Simplicity Doesnot record the
Speed position of gingiva

International Doesnt provide

uniformity assessment of past
periodontal
breakdown

54
COMMUNITY PERIODONTAL INDEX (CPI)
Based on modification of CPITN
Modification is done by including loss of
attachment and eliminating treatment
needs category.

CPI scoring criteria is same as CPITN and

done with CPITN-C probe
 Codes and Criteria for Loss of attachment includes:

Code Criteria
0 loss of attachment 0-3 mm, CEJ not visible
1 loss of attachment 4-5mm
2 loss of attachment 6-8mm
3 loss of attachment 9-11mm
4 loss of attachment 12mm or more
X excluded sextant
9 not recorded

56
PILLARY MARGINAL ATTACHMENT INDEX(PM
BY SCHOUR & MASSLER, (1944)
To count number of gingival unit affected with gingivitis that is
correlated with severity of gingival inflammation.
The facial surface of gingiva around a tooth divided into three
units:
Papillary gingiva (P),
Marginal gingiva (M), and
Attached gingiva (A).
Usually central incisor to second premolars are examined.
PAPILLARY COMPONENT (P)

0= NORMAL; NO INFLAMMATION.

1+= MILD PAPILLARY ENGORGEMENT; SLIGHT INCREASE IN SIZE.

2+= OBVIOUS INCREASE IN SIZE OF GINGIVAL PAPILLA; HEMORRHAGE ON

PRESSURE.

3+= EXCESSIVE INCREASE IN SIZE WITH SPONTANEOUS HEMORRHAGE.

4+= NECROTIC PAPILLA.

5+= ATROPHY AND LOSS OF PAPILLA (THROUGH INFLAMMATION).

MARGINAL COMPONENT(M)
0= Normal; no inflammation visible.

1+= Engorgement; slight increase in size; no bleeding.

2+= Obvious engorgement; bleeding upon pressure.

3+= Swollen collar; spontaneous hemorrhage; beginning

infiltration into attached gingivae.

4+= Necrotic gingivitis.

5+= Recession of the free marginal gingiva below the CEJ due
to inflammatory changes.
ATTACHED COMPONENT(A)
0= Normal; pale rose; stippled.
1+= slight engorgement with loss of stippling; change
in color may or may not be present.
2+=obvious engorgement of attached gingivae with
marked increase in redness. Pocket formation present.
3+=advanced periodontitis. Deep pockets evident.
CALCULATION:

P M A INDEX SCORE PER PERSON = P+M+A

USES:
On clinical trails
On individual patient
For epidemiological surveys

61
 PERIODONTAL DISEASE INDEX (PDI)
FIRST INTRODUCED BY RAMFJORD IN 1959
COMPOSED OF THREE COMPONENTS:
I. PLAQUE COMPONENT,
II. CALCULUS COMPONENT AND
III. GINGIVAL & PERIODONTAL COMPONENET.
. ALL THE THREE COMPONENTS WILL BE SCORED SEPARATELY USING SIX
RAMFJORD SELECTED TEETH.

16 21 24 44 41 36
PLAQUE COMPONENT:
Scoring is done after staining with Bismark
Brown solution.
Score Criteria

0 No plaque

1 Plaque present on some but not on all

interproximal, buccal, and lingual surfaces
of the tooth
2 Plaque present on all interproximal, buccal,
and lingual surfaces,but covering less than
one half of these surfaces
3 Plaque extending over all interproximal,
buccal and lingual surfaces, and covering
CALCULATION:

Plaque Score = Total scores

No. of teeth examined
CALCULUS COMPONENT:
SCORING CRITERIA:

SCO CRITERIA
RE
0 No calculus

1 Supragingival calculus extending only slightly below the

free gingival margin (not more than 1 mm
2 Moderate amount of supragingival and sub gingival
calculus or sub- gingival calculus alone.

3 An abundance of supra gingival and sub gingival

calculus
CALCULATION:

CALCULUS SCORE = TOTAL SCORES

NO. OF SURFACES EXAMINED
GINGIVAL AND PERIODONTAL COMPONENT.

Gingival status is scored first.

Gingival status and crevice depth is recorded in
relation to CEJ
All areas (m, d, b, l) is scored .
Only fully erupted teeth are scored .
There is no substitution for excluded teeth.
SCORE CRITERIA
0 Absence of signs of inflammation
1 Mild to moderate inflammatory gingival changes not
extending around the tooth
2 Mild to moderately severe gingivitis extending all
around the tooth

3 severe gingivitis characterized by marked redness,

swelling, tendency to bleed, and ulceration
4 gingival crevice in any of 4 measured areas(M,D,B,L)
extending apically to CEJ but not more than 3mm
5 gingival crevice in any of 4 measured areas(M,D,B,L)
extending apically to CEJ between 3-6mm
6 gingival crevice in any of 4 measured areas(M,D,B,L)
68
extending apically more than 6mm from CEJ
 CALCULATION

PDI score = Total of individual tooth scores

(PS+CS+GPS)
Number of tooth examined
 RECENT ADVANCES IN PERIODONTAL
INDICES
BASIC PERIODONTAL EXAMINATION (BPE) INDEX
GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY INDEX FOR PERIODONTAL DISEASE
PERIODONTAL SCREENING AND RECORDING (PSR) INDEX

70
BASIC PERIODONTAL EXAMINATION
(BPE) INDEX
Developed by British Society of Periodontology in
1986
Derived from the community periodontal index of
treatment needs (cpitn)
Simple and rapid screening tool that is used to
indicate the level of examination needed and to
provide basic guidance on treatment need
Not a diagnostic tool

71
72
GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY INDEX FOR
PERIODONTAL DISEASE
Genetic markers denote susceptibility toward disease
manifestation and it would be useful to exploit the
information hidden into them and to derive a Genetic
Susceptibility Index (GSI)
Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes
encoding molecules of the host defense system are
assessed and an association is established between SNP
and disease status

73
PERIODONTAL SCREENING AND RECORDING
(PSR) INDEX
Introduced in 1992 by American Academy of Periodontology
(AAP) and American Dental Association(ADA)
Endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO)
Adaptation of the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment
needs (CPITN)
Used to measure gingival bleeding upon probing, calculus on
a tooth, and periodontal pocket depth in each sextant of the
oral cavity
74
 CALCULATING PSR

Highest score in a sextant is recorded as the PSR

score for the sextant.
Only one score is recorded for each sextant of the
oral cavity.
A WHO/CPITN/PSR probe is used to examine each
tooth individually

75
ADVANTAGES

Introducing a simplified screening method

that met legal dental recording requirements.
Early detection of periodontal disease and it
serves as an aid in monitoring the periodontal
status of patients

76
LIMITATIONS

Limited use of the PSR system in children

due to inability to differentiate pseudo-
pockets
Does not measure epithelial attachment,
the severity of periodontal disease may be
underestimated with its use

77
 DPC DETAILED PERIODONTAL CHART
Used to measure pocket depths.
A pocket measuring probe/ Williams probe is
used.
Main components to record:
- Pocket depth (mm)
- Mobility
- Recession (mm)
- Bleeding on probing
- Furcation
 MOBILITY
Two blunt instruments are used to asses a
tooths mobility.
e.g end of mirror and probe
To quantify mobility, Millers index of mobility
is used:
GRADE MOBILITY
Grade Normal physiological mobility (<1mm)
0
Grade Movement up to 1mm in horizontal
1 plane
Grade Movement greater than 1mm in
2 horizontal plane
Grade Severe mobility greater than 2mm or
4 vertical mobility
 FURCATION
The furcation is the point at which the two roots
divide.
A pocket measuring probe is used (nabers probe)

Ramfjord and Ash furcation index:

GRADE MOBILITY
Grade 0 No clinical furcation involved
Grade 1 Bone loss up to 1/3 width
Grade 2 Bone loss up to 2/3 width
Grade 4 Through and through defect
 RECESSION
To measure the recession of a
individual tooth, a pocket measuring
probe must be used.
The probe is placed onto the tooth and
the distance between the cemento-
enamel junction and the gingival
margin is measured. This is the amount
of recession that has occurred on that
tooth.
 BASELINE POCKET DEPTH
THE POCKET MEASURING PROBE IS INSERTED INTO THE
GINGIVAL CREVICE.
THE DISTANCE FROM THE BASE OF THE POCKET AND THE
GINGIVAL MARGIN IS MEASURED.
IN ADDITION, IF THE SITE BLEEDS ON PROBING, CIRCLE
THE SCORE IN RED AND IF THE SITE HAS SUPPURATION
(PUS) CIRCLE THE SCORE IN BLUE OR BLACK.

BASELINE POCKET DEPTH + RECESSION = CAL

WHAT HAPPENS FROM THE RESULTS OF THE DPC??
The DPC allows the operator to find sites in the mouth
requiring attention.
Sites with pockets greater than 5mm will require RSD.
Subsequent pocket depths and cal can be measured after
treatment to assess the success of treatment.
 CONCLUSION
Dental diseases are the most prevalent and most neglected of
all the chronic diseases of mankind.
One of the major problems in studying dental diseases and its
factors is the development of a suitable and practicable
method for recording and classifying the occurrence and
severity of the disease.
Dental indices and scoring methods are used in clinical
practice and community programs to determine and recoRd
the state of health of individual and group

84
 REFERENCES
Essentials of Public health dentistry 5E, Soben Peter
Carranza's Clinical Periodontology, 12E (2015) , Newman,
Takei, Klokkevold, Carranza
H
ttps://www.mah.se/capp/methods-and-indices/oral-hygiene-in
dices/simplified-oral-hygiene-index--ohi-s/
Dhingra k, vandana k l; indices for measuring periodontitis:
a literature review. international dental journal. 2011; 85
THANK
YOU 86