A pilot assessment tool of the need for oral health care and cost prediction in institutionalized elderly people.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the dental treatment backlog and associated costs among institutionalized elderly people using a novel composite index, called the oral health index. BACKGROUND: Despite numerous reports about oral health of old individuals, there is still lack of a systematic and practical method to estimate their treatment need covering all relevant aspects of oral health. In addition, little has been published on associated treatment costs and prediction of such costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study was performed on 143 dentate institutionalized elderly people, whereby several clinical parameters were registered. The collected data were included in the oral health index representing the need for oral health care. This covered the number of caries lesions, number of residual roots, periodontal health condition, plaque score and denture condition with a final score of 0-9. To investigate the validity of the index, the treatment costs were estimated using the measured clinical parameters and later compared with the actual expenditure of the patients for the following 2 years. RESULTS: The average score of the index was 4.6 (SD 1.4) with 65.1% of the individuals having a score between 3 and 6 and 27.3% having a score of 6 and more, exhibiting medium and high need for oral health care, respectively. Only 30% of the patients underwent all the indicated treatments. The major reason of non-completion of the treatment was patient's refusal. From the fully treated group, 61.5% of the subjects actually spent within the predicted range while 38.5% of them spent more than estimated. The underestimation was related to yearly calculus removals leading to repeated calculation of the same costs and newly emerging dental problems (33% developed new caries and 20% was confronted with tooth fracture within the 2-year period). CONCLUSION: The novel index can be helpful to determine oral treatment needs and associated costs. Further research is needed to extend the clinical applicability of the index.

Effects of root surface debridement using Er:YAG laser versus ultrasonic scaling - a SEM study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite promising results of Er:YAG laser in periodontal debridement, to date there is no consensus about the ideal settings for clinical use. This experimental clinical trial aimed to determine the effects of debridement using Er:YAG laser and to compare with ultrasonic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four teeth were divided into two in vivo and in vitro subgroups. Each tooth received ultrasonic treatment on one side and Er:YAG laser debridement at either 60, 100, 160 or 250 mJ pulse(-1) and at 10 Hz on the other side on a random basis. All samples were morphologically analyzed afterwards under scanning electron microscope for surface changes and dentinal tubules exposure. Treatment duration (d) was also recorded. RESULTS: Laser debridement produced an irregular, rough and flaky surface free of carbonization or meltdown while ultrasound produced a relatively smoother surface. The number of exposed dentinal tubules (n) followed an energy-dependent trend. The number of exposed tubules among the in vivo laser groups was n 60 mJ = n 100 mJ < n 160 mJ < n 250 mJ (P < 0.001). Also 160 and 250 mJ lasers led to significantly more dentinal exposure than ultrasound under in vivo condition. Within the in vitro laser groups, dentinal tubules exposure was n 60 mJ < n 100 mJ < n 160 mJ < n 250 mJ (P ≤ 0.0015). Furthermore, in vitro laser treatments at 100, 160 and 250 mJ led to significantly more dentinal denudation than ultrasound. Treatment duration (d) for the in vivo groups was d 60 mJ > d 100 mJ > d Ultrasound = d 160 mJ > d 250 mJ (P ≤ 0.046), while for the in vitro groups it was d 60 mJ > d 100 mJ = d Ultrasound = d 160 mJ >d 250 mJ (P ≤ 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Due to excessive treatment duration and surface damage, Er:YAG laser debridement at 60 and 250 mJ pulse(-1), respectively, is not appropriate for clinical use. Although laser debridement at 100 and 160 mJ pulse(-1) seems more suitable for clinical application, compared to ultrasound the former is more time-consuming and the latter is more aggressive. Using a feedback device or lower pulse energies are recommended when using laser in closed field.

Clinical effects of an essential oil solution used as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement.

AIM: The use of chlorhexidine and povidone iodine solutions applied as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis has been described. Hitherto, this application has not yet been extensively investigated for essential oil solutions. The goal was to clinically explore this and to compare to water irrigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five chronic periodontitis patients participated in a single-blind randomized controlled clinical study. Patients were randomly allocated to the control group (n=18) or test group (n=17) receiving oral hygiene instructions and ultrasonic root debridement using water as a coolant, respectively, a pure essential oil solution. Oral hygiene was reinforced if necessary at each occasion, and clinical parameters were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Significant pocket reduction (control, 1.02 mm; test, 0.89 mm) and clinical attachment gain (control and test, 0.48 mm) were shown in both groups. However, there were no significant differences between the groups at any point in time for any of the parameters. CONCLUSION: Essential oil solutions do not offer a clinical benefit over water when used as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis.