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

BMC Oral Health

Jan L. Wennström¹  Cristiano Tomasi¹  Anna Liss²  Kajsa H. Abrahamsson²  Maria Welander²  Max Petzold³ 

[1] Department of Periodontology, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 450, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden;Department of Periodontology, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 450, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden;Clinic of Periodontology, The Public Dental Service, Region Västra Götaland, Medicinaregatan 12C, 413 90, Gothenburg, Sweden;School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 463, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden;

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

DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-021-02001-4

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

ContextThe 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsNo 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.ConclusionsThe 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).

【 授权许可】

CC BY