Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025

Author Spotlight: 3D Movement Assessment of Maxillary Posterior Teeth in Clear Aligner Treatment
Published on: February 23, 2024
Association, prediction, generalizability: Cross-center validity of predicting tooth loss in periodontitis patients
F Schwendicke1, L T Arsiwala1, J Krois1
1Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany.
Objectives:
To predict patients' tooth loss during supportive periodontal therapy across four German university centers.
Methods:
Tooth loss in 897 patients in four centers (Kiel (KI) n = 391; Greifswald (GW) n = 282; Heidelberg (HD) n = 175; Frankfurt/Main (F) n = 49) during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) was assessed. Our outcome was annualized tooth loss per patient. Multivariable linear regression models were built on data of 75 % of patients from one center and used for predictions on the remaining 25 % of this center and 100 % of data from the other three centers. The prediction error was assessed as root-mean-squared-error (RMSE), i.e., the deviation of predicted from actually lost teeth per patient and year.
Results:
Annualized tooth loss/patient differed significantly between centers (between median 0.00 (interquartile interval: 0.00, 0.17) in GW and 0.09 (0.00, 0.19) in F, p = 0.001). Age, smoking status and number of teeth before SPT were significantly associated with tooth loss (p < 0.03). Prediction within centers showed RMSE of 0.14-0.30, and cross-center RMSE was 0.15-0.31. Predictions were more accurate in F and KI than in HD and GW, while the center on which the model was trained had a less consistent impact. No model showed useful predictive values.
Conclusion:
While covariates were significantly associated with tooth loss in linear regression models, a clinically useful prediction was not possible with any of the models and generalizability was not given. Predictions were more accurate for certain centers.
Clinical Relevance:
Association should not be confused with predictive value: Despite significant associations of covariates with tooth loss, none of our models was useful for prediction. Usually, model accuracy was even lower when tested across centers, indicating low generalizability.
Related Concept Videos
Teeth
In the bud stage, the tooth germ (an aggregation of cells) starts to form in the developing jawbone. During the cap stage, the tooth germ differentiates into enamel organ, dental papilla, and dental sac, which will later develop into the tooth's enamel, dentin...
Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
Tooth Anatomy
The Crown, Neck, and Root
The visible part of the tooth is referred to as the crown. It's covered by enamel, the hardest substance in the human body. The crown is uniquely shaped for each type of tooth, allowing for different functions such as cutting, tearing, or...
Assessment of the Mouth
Mouth Inspection
The inspection begins with visually examining the mouth for symmetry, color, and size.
Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.

