Efficacy of periimplant mechanical debridement with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in the treatment of periimplant diseases among cigarette smokers and non-smokers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the efficacy of mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in reducing periimplant inflammation among cigarette-smokers and non-smokers. METHODS: Cigarette-smokers and non-smokers were randomly divided into 2 groups. In the test-group, participants underwent full mouth scaling and periimplant MD with adjunct aPDT; and in the control-group, the participants underwent full mouth scaling and periimplant MD alone. Periimplant bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured at baseline and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. P-values<0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-four smokers (41 patients in the test group and 43 in the control group) and 82 non-smokers (40 patients in the test group and 42 in the control group) were included. Among smokers and non-smokers, periimplant PD was significantly higher in the control-group compared with the test-group (P<0.05) at 6-months of follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in BOP, PD and CBL among smokers and non-smokers in the test- and control-groups at 12-months of follow-up. BOP was comparable among smokers at all time intervals. CONCLUSION: In the short-term, MD with adjunct aPDT is more effective in reducing periimplant probing depth than MD alone in smokers and non-smokers. However, in the long-term outcomes of MD either with or without aPDT among smokers and non-smokers are comparable.

Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to: (1) determine whether and how often general dentists (GDs) provide specific dental procedures; and (2) test the hypothesis that provision is associated with key dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. METHODS: GDs (n = 2,367) in the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed an Enrollment Questionnaire that included: (1) dentist; (2) practice; and (3) patient characteristics, and how commonly they provide each of 10 dental procedures. We determined how commonly procedures were provided and tested the hypothesis that provision was substantively related to the three sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Two procedure categories were classified as "uncommon" (orthodontics, periodontal surgery), three were "common" (molar endodontics; implants; non-surgical periodontics), and five were "very common" (restorative; esthetic procedures; extractions; removable prosthetics; non-molar endodontics). Dentist, practice, and patient characteristics were substantively related to procedure provision; several characteristics seemed to have pervasive effects, such as dentist gender, training after dental school, full-time/part-time status, private practice vs. institutional practice, presence of a specialist in the same practice, and insurance status of patients. CONCLUSIONS: As a group, GDs provide a comprehensive range of procedures. However, provision by individual dentists is substantively related to certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. A large number and broad range of factors seem to influence which procedures GDs provide. This may have implications for how GDs respond to the ever-changing landscape of dental care utilization, patient population demography, scope of practice, delivery models and GDs' evolving role in primary care.

Evaluating components of dental care utilization among adults with diabetes and matched controls via hurdle models.

BACKGROUND: About one-third of adults with diabetes have severe oral complications. However, limited previous research has investigated dental care utilization associated with diabetes. This project had two purposes: to develop a methodology to estimate dental care utilization using claims data and to use this methodology to compare utilization of dental care between adults with and without diabetes. METHODS: Data included secondary enrollment and demographic data from Washington Dental Service (WDS) and Group Health Cooperative (GH), clinical data from GH, and dental-utilization data from WDS claims during 2002-2006. Dental and medical records from WDS and GH were linked for enrollees continuously and dually insured during the study. We employed hurdle models in a quasi-experimental setting to assess differences between adults with and without diabetes in 5-year cumulative utilization of dental services. Propensity score matching adjusted for differences in baseline covariates between the two groups. RESULTS: We found that adults with diabetes had lower odds of visiting a dentist (OR = 0.74, p < 0.001). Among those with a dental visit, diabetes patients had lower odds of receiving prophylaxis (OR = 0.77), fillings (OR = 0.80) and crowns (OR = 0.84) (p < 0.005 for all) and higher odds of receiving periodontal maintenance (OR = 1.24), non-surgical periodontal procedures (OR = 1.30), extractions (OR = 1.38) and removable prosthetics (OR = 1.36) (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes are less likely to use dental services. Those who do are less likely to use preventive care and more likely to receive periodontal care and tooth-extractions. Future research should address the possible effectiveness of additional prevention in reducing subsequent severe oral disease in patients with diabetes.