Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Dec 15;21(1):645.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-02001-4.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study

Anna Liss  1   2 , Jan L Wennström  3 , Maria Welander  3   4 , Cristiano Tomasi  3 , Max Petzold  5 , Kajsa H Abrahamsson  3   4
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study

Anna Liss et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Context: The current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.

Objective: The specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient's adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene.

Methods: The study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores.

Results: No substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients' experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients' satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months.

Conclusions: The results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients' experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

Keywords: Dental hygienists; Effectiveness; Evidence-based practice; Non-surgical periodontal treatment; Patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart on the progress through the different phases; Enrollment, Allocation to Intervention, Follow-up and Analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tonetti MS, Chapple ILC, Jepsen S, Sanz M. Primary and secondary prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases: Introduction to, and objectives of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology consensus conference. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(Suppl 16):1–4. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12382. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wahlin Å, Papias A, Jansson H, Norderyd O. Secular trends over 40 years of periodontal health and disease in individuals aged 20–80 years in Jönköping, Sweden: repeated cross-sectional studies. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:1016–1024. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12978. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Botelho J, Machado V, Leira Y, Proenca L, Chambrone L, Mendes JJ. Economic burden of periodontitis in the United States and Europe - an updated estimation. J Periodontol. 2021; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34053082. - PubMed
    1. Chapple I, Wilson N. Manifesto for a paradigm shift: periodontal health for a better life. Brit Dent J. 2014;216:159–162. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.97. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tonetti MS, Greenwell H, Kornman KS. Staging and grading of periodontitis: Framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):149–161. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12945. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources