AimTo evaluate the efficacy of the PerioRisk prognostic tool in implementing the effect of motivational interviewing (MI) on psychological outcomes and supragingival plaque control.Materials and MethodsParticipants underwent MI immediately after their first periodontal visit. According to a parallel‐arm, randomized study design, MI was performed with (RISK group) or without (CTR group) information on PerioRisk level and treatment goals based on PerioRisk output. Psychological outcomes were assessed using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). Plaque index (PI) was re‐evaluated after 8–12 weeks.ResultsSignificant improvements in PMT overall score and PI were observed in CTR and RISK groups, without inter‐group difference in PANAS and PMT overall scores and PI. A sub‐analysis showed that the overall PMT scores recorded immediately after MI in both CTR and RISK groups for subjects with no tooth loss due to periodontitis were higher than those recorded before MI in subjects with tooth loss due to periodontitis.ConclusionsAt first periodontal visit, MI (implemented with without PerioRisk) has tangible effects on psychological outcomes and supragingival plaque control and seems to anticipate the awareness that is commonly generated by periodontitis‐related tooth loss (ClinicalTrials.gov protocol registration ID: NCT05078411).

中文翻译：

---

传达牙周风险对接受首次牙周咨询的患者心理结局和龈上斑块控制的疗效： 一项平行臂随机试验


目的评估 PerioRisk 预后工具在实施动机性访谈 （MI） 对心理结果和龈上斑块控制的影响方面的效果。材料和方法参与者在第一次牙周检查后立即接受了 MI。根据平行组随机研究设计，根据 PerioRisk 输出，在有 （RISK 组） 或没有 （CTR 组） 关于 PerioRisk 水平和治疗目标的信息的情况下进行 MI。使用积极影响消极影响量表 （PANAS） 和保护动机理论 （PMT） 评估心理结果。斑块指数 （PI） 在 8-12 周后重新评估。结果CTR 和 RISK 组观察到 PMT 总分和 PI 的显著改善，PANAS 和 PMT 总分和 PI 无组间差异。一项子分析显示，对于因牙周炎没有牙齿脱落的受试者，CTR 和 RISK 组在 MI 后立即记录的总体 PMT 评分高于因牙周炎导致牙齿脱落的受试者在 MI 之前记录的评分。结论在第一次牙周随访时，MI （在没有 PerioRisk 的情况下实施） 对心理结果和龈上牙菌斑控制有切实影响，并且似乎预见了牙周炎相关牙齿脱落通常产生的意识 （ClinicalTrials.gov 协议注册 ID：NCT05078411）。