Screening instruments for periodontal diseases in general dental practice: a literature review

Abstract

Abstract Introduction. Periodontal diseases remain a major oral-health burden, and severe periodontitis continues to affect more than 1 billion people worldwide. In general dental practice, comprehensive periodontal diagnosis relies on clinical examination and radiographic assessment; however, full diagnostic protocols are timeconsuming, technique-sensitive, and not always suitable for rapid chairside triage. This has driven interest in simple, reproducible, and minimally invasive screening instruments capable of facilitating early case identification. Aim. To critically evaluate and synthesize current evidence regarding periodontal disease screening instruments applicable to general dental practice. Materials and methods. A structured narrative literature review was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar using combinations of the terms “gingivitis”, “periodontitis”, “screening”, and “mass screening”. English-language studies in adult human populations addressing clinical, imaging-based, or biomolecular/microbiological periodontal screening were considered. From 214 initially identified records, 20 studies published mainly between 2015 and March 2025 were retained for the final synthesis based on thematic relevance, recency, and clinical applicability. Results. The reviewed literature converged on three principal directions of periodontal screening: rapid standardized clinical tools, imaging-based approaches, and chairside biomolecular/microbiological tests. BPE/PSR/PSI remain the most practical first-line instruments for routine triage, although they are screening rather than definitive diagnostic tools. Panoramic radiographic assessment of alveolar bone loss can add useful structural information, but only in conjunction with clinical findings. aMMP‑8 and microbiological assays such as ADCHECK are promising adjunctive methods; however, the available evidence indicates moderate or context-dependent accuracy and supports a complementary rather than substitutive role. Conclusions. Periodontal screening is feasible and clinically useful in general dental practice, particularly within a stepwise model. Standardized clinical tools should remain the entry point of triage, imaging should refine structural assessment, and biomarker-based or microbiological tests may enhance screening in selected cases. Current evidence therefore supports integration of these methods within a coherent clinical algorithm rather than reliance on any single modality.