Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Health Technol Assess ; 22(38): 1-144, 2018 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29984691

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI). OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). SETTING: UK dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs). RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA. FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Subject(s)
Dental Care/organization & administration , Oral Hygiene/economics , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Periodontal Diseases/prevention & control , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Dental Care/economics , Dental Care/psychology , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Resources/economics , Health Resources/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Econometric , Oral Hygiene/psychology , Patient-Centered Care/economics , Periodontal Index , Quality Improvement/economics , Quality of Life , Self Efficacy , Single-Blind Method , State Medicine , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , United Kingdom , Young Adult
2.
BMC Oral Health ; 13: 58, 2013 Oct 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24160246

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0-3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI.Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases.The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. DISCUSSION: IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715.


Subject(s)
Counseling , Dental Care/standards , Oral Hygiene/education , Periodontal Diseases/prevention & control , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality of Health Care , Adult , Aged , Dental Calculus/prevention & control , Dental Care/economics , Dental Plaque/prevention & control , Dental Prophylaxis/economics , Dental Prophylaxis/standards , Follow-Up Studies , Gingival Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Gingivitis/prevention & control , Health Behavior , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Middle Aged , Oral Hygiene/economics , Periodontal Pocket/prevention & control , Periodontitis/prevention & control , Precision Medicine , Quality of Life , Self Care , Self Efficacy , Single-Blind Method , Toothbrushing/methods , Treatment Outcome
3.
J Clin Periodontol ; 36(11): 950-7, 2009 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19811584

ABSTRACT

AIM: To compare clinical effects of manual and powered toothbrushes on sites of localized gingival recession over 12 months. To evaluate patterns and the extent of toothbrush bristle wear. METHODS: A longitudinal, single-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial compared the effects of one manual and one powered toothbrush on incipient lesions of localized gingival recession. Toothbrush wear was evaluated concurrently by wear index and wear rating. RESULTS: Sixty patients were recruited and randomized to two groups with 52 (26 per group) attending the final visit at month 12. There were no differences between groups for full-mouth plaque index, pocket depth or bleeding on probing at baseline and month 12. There were no differences at target sites for clinical attachment level, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, width of keratinized gingiva or maximal height of recession. There were no differences between the wear of the brushes as measured by wear index or wear rating. CONCLUSION: There was no progression of gingival recession in subjects using either toothbrush over 12 months. There was no difference in the overall wear of the powered and manual toothbrushes over successive 3-month periods.


Subject(s)
Gingival Recession/classification , Toothbrushing/instrumentation , Adolescent , Adult , Cohort Studies , Dental Plaque Index , Disease Progression , Equipment Design , Follow-Up Studies , Gingiva/pathology , Gingival Hemorrhage/classification , Gingival Recession/pathology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Middle Aged , Oral Hygiene , Periodontal Attachment Loss/classification , Periodontal Pocket/classification , Single-Blind Method , Surface Properties , Toothpastes/therapeutic use , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...