Lalani Zohra , Preeti Krishnan , Ashank Mishra , Krishnajaneya Reddy 

ABSTRACT

Aim:To evaluate the periodontal risk of subjects using periodontal risk assessment (PRA) model, modified PRA model and PRAS (periodontal risk assessment diagram surface [PRAS]) score. Materials and method:Fifty chronic periodontitis patients, aged 30-60 years were selected and comprehensive periodontal evaluation was performed. Parameters namely - percentage of sites with bleeding on probing, number of sites with pocket depths ? 5mm, number of the teeth lost, Bone loss/age ratio, (CAL)/age ratio, diabetic and smoking status, systemic factors, as well as socioeconomic status (Kuppuswamy’s classification) were recorded. All the risk factors were plotted on a radar chart for PRA, MPRA and PRAS models, using Microsoft excel 2007 and periodontal risk was categorized as low, moderate and high risk (for PRA, MPRA models), or low to moderate and high risk (for PRAS). Results: Amongst 50 patients, 26 were at high risk, 4 at moderate risk, and 20 at low risk according to PRA model. Whereas, according to MPRA model, 25 were at high risk, 4 at moderate risk and 21 at low risk. PRAS score showed that 18 were at low to moderate risk and 32 were at high risk. No statistically significant difference was found between the risk scores when the modified models(MPRA and PRAS score) were compared with the original PRA model (?2=0.044, p value =0.978 (PRA vs. MPRA), ?2= 1.026, p value =0.311(PRA vs. PRAS)) Conclusion:All three models were effective in evaluating the periodontal risk. Although MPRA considers greater number of parameters than PRA, no statistically significant difference exists between the interpretations of the two in the population studied. Also, with in the limitations of the present study, we observe that PRAS score over estimates the subjects risk, which however did not translate into statistical significance.