Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prognosis Versus Actual Outcome. II. The Effectiveness of Clinical Parameters in Developing an Accurate Prognosis

McGuire, Michael K., Nunn, Martha E.·1996·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

T he assignment of prognosis is one of the most important functions undertaken in clinical practice, yet there is little evidence to support the current decision‐making process which is based on an outdated model of disease etiology and progression. This study evaluated 100 treated periodontal patients (2,484 teeth) under maintenance care for 5 years, with 38 of these patients followed for 8 years, to determine the relationship of assigned prognoses to the clinical criteria commonly used in the development of prognosis. The method of generalized estimating equations (GEE) for correlated data was utilized to determine the relationship of each clinical factor to the assignment of initial prognosis, improvement in prognosis at 5 years, and worsening in prognosis at 5 years. A multiple linear regression model was constructed for predicting initial prognosis based on initial clinical data. Increased probing depth, more severe furcation involvement, greater mobility, unsatisfactory crown‐to‐root ratio, malpositioned teeth, and teeth used as fixed abutments resulted in worse initial prognoses. The coefficients from this model were able to predict accurately the 5‐year and 8‐year prognoses 81% of the time. When teeth with “good” prognoses were excluded, the predictive accuracy dropped approximately 50%. Multiple logistic regression models indicated that improvement in prognoses and worsening in prognoses were both strongly associated with initial probing depth, initial furcation involvement, initial tooth malposition, and smoking when adjusted for initial prognosis. In addition, good hygiene was found to increase the probability of improvement in prognosis while initial mobility was found to decrease the likelihood of improvement in prognosis. Neither of these factors was found to be significant in worsening of prognosis. Smoking decreased the likelihood of improvement by 60% and doubled the likelihood of worsening in prognosis at 5 years. The results of this study indicate that some clinical factors used in the assignment of prognoses are clearly associated with changes in clinical condition over time. The data also demonstrated that the traditional approach for assigning prognoses is ineffective for teeth with an initial prognosis of less than good. Since most periodontally involved teeth are compromised, further work should include the development of a more effective method for assigning prognoses that is based on clear, objective clinical criteria. J Periodontol 1996;67:658–665.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1902/jop.1996.67.7.658

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
McGuire, M. K., & Nunn, M. E.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-07
Volume
67
Issue
7
Pages
658-665
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2149619069
Cited by
308
References
0
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognosis Versus Actual Outcome. II. The Effectiveness of Clinical Parameters in Developing an Accurate Prognosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1902/jop.1996.67.7.658
The paper
McGuire, M. K., & Nunn, M. E. (1996). Prognosis Versus Actual Outcome. II. The Effectiveness of Clinical Parameters in Developing an Accurate Prognosis. Journal of Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1996.67.7.658

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.