Objective: To compare the results of a subjective estimation of oral health through review of a set of intraoral photographs with those of an objective oral health scale of infectious potential.
Method: The pool of patients was made up of 100 adults. Using an infectious-potential scale based on dental and periodontal variables, we assigned 1 of the 4 grades of the scale (range, 0 to 3; 0 corresponds to an excellent oral health status and 3 to the poorest oral health status) to each subject. A total of 20 representative subjects were selected from the pool of patients, 5 subjects for each one of the grades of the scale, and a standardized photographic record was made. One thousand dentists practicing in Spain were sent the survey by e-mail and 174 completed forms were received. We then calculated the concordance of the oral health status indicated by the respondents after visualising the photographs on comparison with the results of the oral health scale of infectious potential; concordance was termed correct grade allocation (CGA).
Results: The majority of respondents (69.1%) achieved a CGA in 8 to 12 cases and none achieved more than 15 CGAs. The poorest CGA rates were found with grades 1 and 2, with a mean of 1.74 ± 1.09 and 1.87 ± 1.18, respectively, out of a maximum of 5. The concordance in terms of CGA was high for grade 0 (70.5%), very low for grade 1 (10.8%), low for grade 2 (37.3%), and moderate for grade 3 (42.6%).
Conclusion: In comparison with visual examination of the oral cavity, the use of objective scale that establishes a reliable diagnosis of oral health in terms of infectious potential was found to be advantageous.