A Comparative Study of Periodontal Health Status of Tibetan Refugees Settled in Karnataka and the Local Indian Population
Sujan Shetty1, Neelima Neela2, Ila Tiwari3, Padmakanth Mannava4, Sukriti Tiwari5, Swapnil Sushil Sadhu6
1 Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics, Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences Hospital & Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, India
2 Professor and Head, Department of Periodontics, Haldia Institute of Sciences and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences Hospital and Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, India
4 Reader, Department of Periodontics, Triveni Institute of Dental Science s Hospital & Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, India
5 Post-graduate Student, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Wardha, Maharashtra, India
6 Post-graduate Student, Department Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Triveni Dental College Hospital and Research Institute, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, India
Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics, Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences Hospital & Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, India
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: The aim of the present study was to compare and evaluate the periodontal status between the Tibetan refugees settled in Karnataka and the local Indian population, i.e., Hubli-Dharwad.
Materials and Methods: In the present study, a total of 1000 subjects, 500 Indians and 500 Tibetans above the age of 18 years were examined. They were again grouped into 4 groups based on their age. Thus, oral hygiene and periodontal status were assessed by plaque index (PI) (Silness and Loe 1964), gingival index (GI) (Loe and Silness 1963), bleeding index (Muhlemann 1971), simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S) index (Greene and Vermillion 1964), and community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN) index (Animo et al., for WHO 1982).
Results: Indian males and females exhibited better oral hygiene than the Tibetan's. Tibetan and Indian population with regard to various age groups, it was found that Indian population had significantly better periodontal status in all the groups. Gingival recession was seen more commonly among the Indian population when compared Tibetan population, whereas oral lesions were a more prevalent among Tibetans than Indians. Comparing various indices for periodontal status GI, sulcus bleeding index and CPITN index for the overall population between Indians and Tibetans did not show any statistically significant difference, whereas PI and OHI were statistically significant (P < 0.005).
Conclusion: The Indian population which visited the dental college for treatment purposes had better oral hygiene and periodontal status as compared to the Tibetan population.