Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of three different gargles in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the economics of three different gargles in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. METHODS: A total of 108 patients with periodontitis received one of the following three gargles: xipayi, compound chlorhexidine, or Kangfuxin gargle. The basic information of the patients, the costs of the gargles, the periodontal indexes before and after treatment, and the scores of the 3-level version of the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire were collected. The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the various gargles were determined. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratios (CER) of the three groups after treatment were 1828.75, 1573.34, and 1876.92 RMB, respectively. The utility values before treatment were 0.92, 0.90, and 0.91, respectively, and the utility values after treatment were 0.98, 0.98, and 0.97, respectively. The cost-utility ratios (CURs) were 213.43, 195.61, and 301.53 RMB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For each increase in effective rate and quality-adjusted life years, the treatment cost of periodontitis patients was lower than the gross domestic product per capita of Jiangsu Province, indicating that the treatment cost is completely worth it. The CER and CUR results were the same, and the compound chlorhexidine group was the lowest, demonstrating that when the same therapeutic effect was achieved, it cost the least.

Long-term treatment costs for aggressive periodontitis in a German population.

AIM: This study assessed the long-term annual costs for treating aggressive periodontitis (AgP) patients. METHODS: A cohort of compliant AgP patients was retrospectively evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planing, open flap debridement, root resections, but not pocket elimination or regenerative surgery) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, including also costs for restorative, endodontic, prosthetic and surgical treatments) were estimated from a mixed payer perspective in Germany. The impact of tooth- and patient-level factors on annual costs was assessed using mixed modelling. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (mean [SD] age: 35.2/6.8 years), with 26.5 (4.0) teeth (38% with bone loss >50%) were treated. Mean follow-up (retention) time was 16.9 (5.4) years. Total treatment costs per patient and per tooth were 6,998 (3,807) and 267 (148) Euro, respectively. Approximately 87% of the costs were generated during SPT, 13% during APT. Annual patient- and tooth-level costs were 536 (209) and 20.1 (65.0) Euro, respectively. Annual tooth-level costs were significantly increased in patients aged 34 years or older, male patients, former or current smokers, teeth with furcation involvement degree II/III, and bone loss 50%-70%. CONCLUSIONS: Annual treatment costs for treating AgP patients were similar to those found for chronic periodontitis patients. Certain parameters might predict costs.

Socioeconomic position during life and periodontitis in adulthood: a systematic review.

Socioeconomic position (SEP) is a well-known risk indicator for chronic periodontitis. However, it is still unclear how SEP during the life course influences periodontal outcomes in adulthood. This study aimed to systematically review longitudinal studies investigating the influence of individual-level SEP during the life course on subsequent periodontitis in adulthood. Inclusion criteria were epidemiological longitudinal observational studies, in which indicators of relative SEP were assessed prior to clinical assessment of periodontitis. Six electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and ScieLO) were searched. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The search identified 1720 papers. After removal of duplicates (n=697), title and abstract screening (n=996), and full-text review (n=19), eight original manuscripts from seven studies were finally included. Sample sizes ranged from 167 to 2806, and the follow-up time from exposure to outcome ranged from 2 to 28 years. Studies evaluated education, occupation or income as SEP indicators. Prevalence, extent and severity of periodontal attachment loss, probing pocket depth and alveolar bone loss were the studied outcomes. Based on NOS, studies presented low risk of bias. Six of eight papers reported that relatively low SEP earlier in life was associated with poorer periodontal health in adulthood. The available scientific evidence demonstrates potential longitudinal impact of earlier lower SEP on later periodontal health. The findings were consistent despite differences in study methods.

Management of periodontal disease in patients using calcium channel blockers - gingival overgrowth, prescribed medications, treatment responses and added treatment costs.

OBJECTIVES: Gingival overgrowth (GO) is an adverse drug reaction in patients using calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Little is known about the effects of CCBs on the management of periodontal diseases. The aim of this study was to assess how the use of CCBs affects the long-term supportive treatment and outcomes in patients undergoing periodontal therapy. METHODS: All patients using CCBs during the initial treatment and/or the supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) were selected from a periodontal practice. Patients were scored using a Gingival Overgrowth Index (GOI). The effects of CCB types and dosages were assessed in terms of the frequency and the severity of GO, treatment responses, substitutions and extra treatment costs. Mean values, Standard Deviation (SD) and range were calculated. The Mann-Whitney test was used to assess statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) for GO between patients with good and poor oral hygiene, differences between before and after terminating or replacing the CCBs, possible differences between drug dosages (Dihydropyridine 5 mg and 10 mg) and differences between three drug combinations (CCB and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (IRAS), CCB and non-IRAS, CCB and statins). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four patients (58 females, 66 males, 4.6% of the patient population) were using CCBs. 103 patients were assessed. Average age was 66.53 years (SD. 9.89, range 42-88) and the observation time was 11.30 years (SD 8.06, range 1-27). Eighty-nine patients had GO, 75 of these required treatment for GO. Terminating or replacing with alternatives to CCBs resulted in significant decreases in GO (p = 0.00016, p = 0.00068) respectively. No differences were found between good and poor oral hygiene (p = 0.074), drug dosages or the various drug combinations. Surgical treatment was more effective than non-surgical treatment in controlling the GO. Long-term tooth loss was 0.11 teeth per patient per year. Forty-two patients needed re-treatments for GO, resulting in an extra life cost per patient of €13471 (discounted €4177). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients (86.4%) using CCBs experienced GO. 47.2% of these experienced recurrence(s) of GO during the SPT and needed re-treatments with resulting added costs. The long-term tooth loss was considerably higher for patients using CCBs than for other patients groups from the same practice setting.

Presence of gingivitis and periodontitis significantly increases hospital charges in patients undergoing heart valve surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and impact of gingivitis and periodontitis in patients having heart valve surgical procedures. METHODS: Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the years 2004-2010 was used. All patients who had heart valve surgical procedures were selected. Prevalence of gingivitis/periodontitis was examined in these patients. Impact of gingivitis/periodontitis on hospital charges, length of stay, and infectious complications was examined. RESULTS: 596,190 patients had heart valve surgical procedures. Gingivitis/periodontitis was present in 0.2 percent. Outcomes included: median hospital charges ($175,418 with gingivitis/ periodontitis versus $149,353 without gingivitis/periodontitis) and median length of stay (14 days with gingivitis/periodontitis versus 8 days without gingivitis/periodontitis). After adjusting for the effects of patient- and hospital-level confounding factors, hospital charges and length of stay were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in those with gingivitis/periodontitis compared to their counterparts. Further, patients with gingivitis/periodontitis had significantly higher odds for having bacterial infections (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 2.33-4.98, p < 0.0001) when compared to those without gingivitis/periodontitis. CONCLUSION: Presence of gingivitis and periodontitis is associated with higher risk for bacterial infections and significant hospital resource utilization.

Cost analysis of periodontitis management in public sector specialist dental clinics.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this paper is to quantify the cost of periodontitis management at public sector specialist periodontal clinic settings and analyse the distribution of cost components. METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4). RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P < 0.001). Providers generally spent most on consumables while patients spent most on transportation. CONCLUSIONS: Cost of providing dental treatment for periodontitis patients at public sector specialist settings were substantial and comparable with some non-communicable diseases. These findings provide basis for identifying potential cost-reducing strategies, estimating economic burden of periodontitis management and performing economic evaluation of the specialist periodontal programme.

A randomized controlled trial on immediate surgery versus root planing in patients with advanced periodontal disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM: To compare immediate surgery to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of advanced periodontal disease focusing on the prevalence of residual sites and cost-effectiveness (1); to evaluate the adjunctive effects of azithromycin in a second treatment phase (2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (18 males, 21 females; mean age: 54.6) received oral hygiene instructions and were randomly allocated to surgery (n = 19) or SRP (n = 20). Patients with residual pockets (≥6 mm) at 6 months received re-debridement of these sites and systemic azithromycin. Treatment groups were followed up to 12 months and evaluated in terms of clinical response parameters and cost-effectiveness. Chair-time was used to assess the financial impact of treatment. RESULTS: Both treatment arms were equally effective in terms of clinical outcome demonstrating less than 1% residual pockets at 12 months. Surgery imposed an extra 746 Euro on the patient up to 6 months when compared to SRP. At 12 months, 46 Euro of this amount could be offset as a result of a reduced need for supportive care. Only 6 patients in the surgery group needed systemic antibiotics, whereas 14 patients in the SRP needed such additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although 700 Euro could be saved on average by performing SRP instead of surgery, the latter significantly reduced the need for supportive care and systemic antibiotics.

Incorporating severity and risk as factors to the Fardal cost-effectiveness model to create a cost-benefit model for periodontal treatment.

BACKGROUND: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation. METHODS: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk. RESULTS: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $1,405 to $4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $4,787. CONCLUSION: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.

Cost-effectiveness of an individually tailored oral health educational programme based on cognitive behavioural strategies in non-surgical periodontal treatment.

AIM: The aim of this cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), performed from a societal perspective, was to compare costs and consequences of an individually tailored oral health educational programme (ITOHEP) based on cognitive behavioural strategies integrated in non-surgical periodontal treatment compared with a standard treatment programme (ST). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized (n = 113), evaluator-blinded, controlled trial, with two different active treatments, was analysed with respect to their costs and consequences 12 months after non-surgical treatment. Costs referred to both treatment costs and costs contributed by the patient. Consequences (outcome) were expressed as the proportion of individuals classified as having reached the pre-set criteria for treatment success after non-surgical treatment ("successful-NSPT"). RESULTS: More individuals in the ITOHEP group reached the pre-set criteria for treatment success than individuals in the ST group did. The CEA revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness of SEK1724 [€191.09; SEK9.02 = €1 (January 2007)] per "successful-NSPT" case, of which treatment costs represented SEK1189 (€131.82), using the unit cost for a dental hygienist. CONCLUSION: The incremental costs per "successful-NSPT" case can be considered as low and strengthens the suggestion that an ITOHEP integrated into non-surgical periodontal treatment is preferable to a standardized education programme.

The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment: a case study from a Norwegian specialist practice.

BACKGROUND: Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. METHODS: Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. RESULTS: Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤ 4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤ 3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied.

Patients' attitudes towards oral health and experiences of periodontal treatment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present qualitative study was to analyse patients' attitudes towards oral health and experiences of periodontal treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were referred to a specialist clinic in periodontics were subjected to open-ended interviews before (Abrahamsson et al, 2008), as well as after, the phase of cause-related periodontal therapy. An interview guide was used with themes of interest. The time interval between the interviews was about 6 months. Because the study focused on psychosocial interactions, the qualitative method used for the analysis was Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Data collection and analysis were simultaneous processes that focus on psychosocial processes, existing problems and how these problems were dealt with. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and consequently analysed in a hierarchical coding process until saturation was met (n = 16). RESULTS: In the analysis, a core category was identified: 'Understanding the seriousness of the disease condition'. This core concept was related to four additional categories and dimensions: 'The need to be treated respectfully', 'To gain insight', 'Frustration about the financial cost for treatment' and 'Feelings of control over the situation'. Taken together, the core category and its related subcategories described a psychosocial process that was related to periodontal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results elucidated the patients' vulnerability and the importance of patient communication in the treatment for chronic periodontitis in order for the patient to feel in control of the situation.

Effort and costs of tooth preservation in supportive periodontal treatment in a German population.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of effort (number of visits) and costs of tooth preservation 10 years after initiation of anti-infective therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data of 98 patients who had received active periodontal treatment 10 years ago by the same examiner were analysed to gather information on effort and costs of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Clinical examination, interleukin-1 (IL-1) polymorphism test, smoking, search of patients' files (i.e. initial diagnosis), as well as a questionnaire on medical history and socioeconomic data were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: During 10 years of SPT patients had 14.8+/-7.4 visits. Number of visits was statistically significantly higher for individuals with a mean plaque control record >or=24 %. The number of subgingival scalings per tooth ranged from 0 to 14 (mean: 1.17). On tooth level several confounders could be identified: tooth type, initial bone loss, furcation involvement, abutment status, and previous regenerative surgery (p

The cost-effectiveness of supportive periodontal care for patients with chronic periodontitis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the evidence for effectiveness of supportive periodontal care (SPC) provided in specialist care and general practice for patients with chronic periodontitis; to construct a model for the cost effectiveness of SPC. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS were performed with hand searching of relevant journals and Workshops of Periodontology. SELECTION CRITERIA: SPC for patients with chronic periodontitis, at least 12 months follow-up and clinical attachment level as a primary outcome. RESULTS: Three articles addressed the question (Nyman et al. 1975, Axelsson & Lindhe 1981, Cortellini et al. 1994): Deltas CAL for patients undergoing "specialist" SPC were 0.1 mm (2 years), 0.2 mm (6 years) and -0.01 mm (3 years) respectively. In generalist care the Deltas CAL during SPC were -2.2, -1.8 and -2.8 mm. Differences between specialist and generalist SPC were an extra 20.59 tooth years and 3.95 mm attachment loss for generalist SPC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were an extra 288 euros for one tooth year or an extra 1503 euros/1 mm reduction in loss of attachment for SPC delivered in specialist care. CONCLUSION: SPC delivered in specialist as compared with general practice will result in greater stability of clinical attachment but this will be achieved at relatively greater cost.