Abstrakt

Periodontal disease

Alice Armitage

Since at least 5000 BC, periodontal disorders have been recognised and treated. The apparent disparities in how periodontal diseases manifest have long been acknowledged by clinicians, who have made an effort to categorise these illnesses. Aetiology, pathophysiology, and therapy of illnesses may now be identified using structures developed by physicians using disease categorization systems that have emerged. It enables us to plan efficient care for the illnesses of our patients. The cause of the problem and the best evidence-based treatment are offered to the practitioner when a disease has been identified and characterised. Health care providers may communicate effectively utilising a common language because to shared categorization systems. Early categorization attempts were based on the clinical features of the illnesses or beliefs regarding their origin [1]. There was no evidence to back up their attempts. The foundation of categorization was established by conventional pathology as scientific understanding grew. Systems of classification based on our understanding of the numerous periodontal diseases and the host response to them have since followed this. Periodontal disease classification, however, has proven difficult. As research has increased our understanding of these illnesses over the course of the last century, physicians and researchers have struggled with the issue and have met frequently to review or improve the categorization of the many types of periodontal disease. As a result, adjustments and updates have been made often. However, a categorization shouldn’t be thought of as a long-lasting structure. It must be flexible enough to adapt and develop when new knowledge is discovered. It is anticipated that categorization schemes will evolve over time. The categories of periodontal diseases in the past and today are examined in this overview [2].