Ked eye; 3 represented an abundance of soft matter within the pocket

Ked eye; 3 represented an abundance of soft matter within the pocket or on the tooth. Thus, each area of each tooth was assigned a score from 0 to 3. Scores for each tooth were totaled and divided by the six surfaces scored. To determine a median PI for an individual, the scores for each tooth were added and divided by the number of teeth examined. Four ratings could then be assigned: 0 = excellent, 0.1?.9 = good, 1.0?.9 = fair, 2.0?3.0 = poor. A PI 1.0 was the threshold for qualifying plaque control as insufficient. Gingival inflammation ?the Gingival Index score system [GI] [21] was used to assess the CAL120 price severity of gingivitis based on color, consistency, and bleeding on probing. Each tooth was examined at six sites. A probe was used to press on the gingiva to determine its degree of firmness, and to run along the soft tissue wall adjacent toStatistical AnalysisAll analyses were performed using the statistical software R (R, version 2.12.1, the R Core Development team, 2010). A priori sample size calculation was performed using a statistical software program [24]. Using the patient as the statistical unit and hsCRP value as the main variable, a sample size of 32 was calculated to achieve 80 power at the two-sided 5 level to detect a difference of 4 mg/L between the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, with a standard deviation of 4 mg/L. The population was separated into two groups: patients with mild to moderate periodontitis (n = 16); and those with severe periodontitis (n = 16). Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between groups were analysed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Fisher exact test (Table 1). First, the univariate model was run to explore the association between severity of periodontitis and biological (CRP, orosomucoid, Il-6, adiponectin and leptin) and non-biological (number of teeth, BMI,Orosomucoid, Obesity and PeriodontitisTable 1. Bioclinical and periodontal characteristics of the population studied.Parameters (units)Mild to moderate Periodontitis (n = 16)Severe Periodontitis (n = 16)Total (n = 32)MedianAge (years) BMI (kg/m2) Females n ( ) Diabetes n ( ) Smokers n ( )(1) Remaining teeth n PI GI PPD (mm){ CAL (mm){range31.0?0.0 37.0?3.5 10?8 0.3?.8 1.4?.9 1.8?.7 1.8?.3 1.0?3.8 0.6?.2 1.5?8.0 3.1?1.7 15.4?5.median46.0 47.5 12 (75) 9 (56) 5 (41) 26 1.1 2.1 2.8 2.9 6.2 1.1 3.6 6.5 44.range34.0?0.0 36.3?0.9 11?8 0.4?.2 1.0?.7 2.4?.5 2.4?.0 1.5?2.8 0.6?.3 1.8?1.5 3.1?0.9 22.7?8.median46.0 47.5 25 (78) 17 (53) 15 (47) 26 1.0 1.9 2.6 2.8 5.6 1.0 3.3 7.4 45.range31.0?0.0 36.3?3.6 10?8 0.3?.8 1.0?.9 1.8?.5 1.8?.0 1.0?2.8 0.6?.3 1.5?8.0 3.1?1.7 15.4?8.45.5 48.1 13 (81) 8 (50) 10 (62) 27 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.6 5.0 0.9 3.1 7.7 46.CRP (mg/l) Orosomucoid (g/l)* Il? (pg/ml) Adiponectin ( mg/ml) Leptin (ng/ml)The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare medians between groups, and the Fisher exact test to compare proportions. *p,0.05. {p,0.01. PI: Plaque Index, GI: Gingival Index, PPD: Pocket Probing Depth, CAL: Clinical Attachment Loss, CRP: C-Reactive Protein. (1) 80-49-9 biological activity smoking status: never versus former and current. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057645.tdiabetes and smokers) variables (Table 2). Then, all biological variables were included in the multivariate models with adjustment for age, gender and smoking (Model A) and with adjustment for age, gender, smoking and diabetes (Model B) (Table 3).Results Periodontal status of obese patientsThirty-two subjects were included in the analysis. Table 1 shows t.Ked eye; 3 represented an abundance of soft matter within the pocket or on the tooth. Thus, each area of each tooth was assigned a score from 0 to 3. Scores for each tooth were totaled and divided by the six surfaces scored. To determine a median PI for an individual, the scores for each tooth were added and divided by the number of teeth examined. Four ratings could then be assigned: 0 = excellent, 0.1?.9 = good, 1.0?.9 = fair, 2.0?3.0 = poor. A PI 1.0 was the threshold for qualifying plaque control as insufficient. Gingival inflammation ?the Gingival Index score system [GI] [21] was used to assess the severity of gingivitis based on color, consistency, and bleeding on probing. Each tooth was examined at six sites. A probe was used to press on the gingiva to determine its degree of firmness, and to run along the soft tissue wall adjacent toStatistical AnalysisAll analyses were performed using the statistical software R (R, version 2.12.1, the R Core Development team, 2010). A priori sample size calculation was performed using a statistical software program [24]. Using the patient as the statistical unit and hsCRP value as the main variable, a sample size of 32 was calculated to achieve 80 power at the two-sided 5 level to detect a difference of 4 mg/L between the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, with a standard deviation of 4 mg/L. The population was separated into two groups: patients with mild to moderate periodontitis (n = 16); and those with severe periodontitis (n = 16). Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between groups were analysed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Fisher exact test (Table 1). First, the univariate model was run to explore the association between severity of periodontitis and biological (CRP, orosomucoid, Il-6, adiponectin and leptin) and non-biological (number of teeth, BMI,Orosomucoid, Obesity and PeriodontitisTable 1. Bioclinical and periodontal characteristics of the population studied.Parameters (units)Mild to moderate Periodontitis (n = 16)Severe Periodontitis (n = 16)Total (n = 32)MedianAge (years) BMI (kg/m2) Females n ( ) Diabetes n ( ) Smokers n ( )(1) Remaining teeth n PI GI PPD (mm){ CAL (mm){range31.0?0.0 37.0?3.5 10?8 0.3?.8 1.4?.9 1.8?.7 1.8?.3 1.0?3.8 0.6?.2 1.5?8.0 3.1?1.7 15.4?5.median46.0 47.5 12 (75) 9 (56) 5 (41) 26 1.1 2.1 2.8 2.9 6.2 1.1 3.6 6.5 44.range34.0?0.0 36.3?0.9 11?8 0.4?.2 1.0?.7 2.4?.5 2.4?.0 1.5?2.8 0.6?.3 1.8?1.5 3.1?0.9 22.7?8.median46.0 47.5 25 (78) 17 (53) 15 (47) 26 1.0 1.9 2.6 2.8 5.6 1.0 3.3 7.4 45.range31.0?0.0 36.3?3.6 10?8 0.3?.8 1.0?.9 1.8?.5 1.8?.0 1.0?2.8 0.6?.3 1.5?8.0 3.1?1.7 15.4?8.45.5 48.1 13 (81) 8 (50) 10 (62) 27 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.6 5.0 0.9 3.1 7.7 46.CRP (mg/l) Orosomucoid (g/l)* Il? (pg/ml) Adiponectin ( mg/ml) Leptin (ng/ml)The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare medians between groups, and the Fisher exact test to compare proportions. *p,0.05. {p,0.01. PI: Plaque Index, GI: Gingival Index, PPD: Pocket Probing Depth, CAL: Clinical Attachment Loss, CRP: C-Reactive Protein. (1) Smoking status: never versus former and current. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057645.tdiabetes and smokers) variables (Table 2). Then, all biological variables were included in the multivariate models with adjustment for age, gender and smoking (Model A) and with adjustment for age, gender, smoking and diabetes (Model B) (Table 3).Results Periodontal status of obese patientsThirty-two subjects were included in the analysis. Table 1 shows t.