Supportive periodontal care in dental practice: Part 2 - perceptions of locally referring UK general dental practitioners.

Background Supportive periodontal care (SPC) is important in maintaining periodontal treatment outcomes. Hospital services provide specialist periodontal care at high costs. On completion of treatment, patients are discharged back to the general dental practitioner (GDP) to provide SPC. This project aimed to evaluate the change in GDPs' understanding of SPC over more than 20 years.Method A validated questionnaire about SPC was sent to GDPs during 1996 (397) and 2020 (300), with a response rate of 74% and 52%, respectively. The anonymous data were entered on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis.Results In total, 98.5% of the GDPs in 1996 and 97% in 2020 perceived SPC to be highly important. Additionally, 49% in 2020 had a better understanding of SPC when compared to 1996 (42%). Finally, 70-74% (1996, 2020) of the GDPs indicated that they were responsible for SPC; however, 13-16% said that they were not.Conclusion and clinical relevance Notwithstanding the lower response rate in 2020, there has been an improvement in understanding and awareness of responsibility of SPC among GDPs. Reported challenges of provision were related to education and funding. If GDPs are to effectively deliver SPC, education and current funding should be addressed to prevent compromised treatment outcomes for patients.

Supportive periodontal care in dental practice: Part 1 - the importance and implications for general dental practitioners.

Supportive periodontal care is an essential component of maintaining the outcome of periodontal treatment. It is essential to ensure cost benefit to both patients and the health services where millions are spent on treating patients with periodontal disease. The dentist must be able to recognise the crucial and important role they play in providing supportive care and therapy to periodontally compromised patients, either independently or as part of a wider dental team, over and above the various challenges they may experience in the provision of such care in general dental practice. The timely intervention with treatment or referral during this phase will help reduce the risk of tooth loss and adverse consequences to the dentist and their team by way of litigation. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the delivery of supportive periodontal care in general dental practice with a particular reference to the role of the dentist.

Severe periodontal destruction in alpha-mannosidosis: a case series.

Alpha-mannosidosis is a rare genetic lysosomal storage disorder that is inherited in an autosomal recessive pattern. Severe periodontal breakdown in alpha-mannosidosis patients has not previously been reported in the literature. The purposes of this paper are to: present the cases of 2 siblings diagnosed with alpha-mannosidosis, each of whom had varying severity of periodontal destruction; and provide an overview of alpha-mannosidosis, the possible reasons for the periodontal destruction, and the periodontal management in the 2 affected siblings. Both had preventive and nonsurgical periodontal therapy followed by a 5-year period of supportive therapy. Their pattern of bone loss was consistent with those with periodontitis as a manifestation of systemic diseases, with the extent of periodontal destruction being related to the severity of the alpha-mannosidosis. Alpha-mannosidosis patients present with social disfigurements and, to prevent tooth loss that can add to this, early periodontal diagnosis is important to optimize management and intervention.

An audit of the quality and content of periodontal referrals and the effect of implementing referral criteria.

AIMS: This audit aimed to assess the effect of implementing referral criteria on the quality and content of referral letters sent by general dental practitioners (GDPs) to the periodontal department of a teaching hospital. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from a total of 450 referrals made in: (i) 1997, prior to any changes; (ii) 2000/2001, after referral guidelines were implemented; and (iii) 2004/2005, after referral criteria were redefined and circulated via Primary Care Trusts. A standardised data-collection form was used to record the information that was provided in the referral letters. This information was also compared to the findings at initial hospital consultations. RESULTS: There was a small improvement in the administrative details provided in the referral communications in 2000/2001 and 2004/2005. Medical history was often incomplete and was mentioned in 31-34% of referral letters. Use of the Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) score increased from 17% (1997) to 57% (2004/2005). The information on clinical details otherwise increased in 2000/2001 with a tendency to decrease in 2004/2005. There was little agreement between the clinical details in the referral communications and the findings at consultation in the periodontal department. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of referral criteria, there was an increase in the clinical details provided in referral letters. However, the validity of the information provided by the GDPs was often questionable. The number of referrals that provided medical history details remained unchanged. Use of a pro forma was not associated with an improvement in the quality of referrals in this audit.