Egersund Group (Norway)

Little work has been done on quality assurance of long-term maintenance of periodontal therapy A quality assurance model was applied to 80 patients (50 females, 30 males) with an average age of 64.3years (SD. 8.83, range 45-91) and with 21.6 (SD. 2.65, range 16-26) maintenance years. The main elements were patients' expectations, objectives and patient-based outcomes, human and financial costs and treatment deviations. For cost-effectiveness, this group was compared with a control group of 25 patients with an average of 9.96years not complying with maintenance therapy. The patients' main expectations and reasons for seeking treatment were to save teeth and a desire for better oral health. The patients had a total tooth-year loss of 3.3%. 81.3% reported improved oral health. Total treatment discounted cost was €5842. The cost of buying an extra tooth year was €20.2. Patients reported anxiety of 4.6 (SD10.5, range 0-47) and discomfort of 11.8 (SD13.2 range 0-70) for the maintenance visits on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment deviations showed 3.8% extreme downhill patients, 6.3% with poor oral hygiene, 3.8% reported a worsening of their oral health, 3.8% had high anxiety whereas 5.0% experienced a high level of discomfort. It is possible to apply a number of elements of a quality assurance measure to a patient population of compliant maintenance patients in real time. The results obtained compare well with previous internal and external studies. This model should be useful to patients and practitioners as well as for larger population-based studies.

The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with continued significant tooth loss due to periodontal reasons during maintenance following periodontal therapy in a specialist periodontal practice in Norway. A case-control design was used. Refractory cases were patients who lost multiple teeth during a maintenance period of 13.4 (range 8-19) years following definitive periodontal treatment in a specialist practice. Controls were age- and gender-matched maintenance patients from the same practice. Characteristics and treatment outcomes were assessed, and all teeth classified as being lost due to periodontal disease during follow-up were identified. The use of implants in refractory cases and any complications relating to such a treatment were recorded. Only 27 (2.2%) patients who received periodontal treatment between 1986 and 1998 in a specialist practice met the criteria for inclusion in the refractory to treatment group. Each refractory subject lost 10.4 (range 4-16) teeth, which represented 50% of the teeth present at baseline. The rate of tooth loss in the refractory group was 0.78 teeth per year, which was 35 times greater than that in the control group. Multivariate analysis indicated that being in the refractory group was predicted by heavy smoking (p=0.026), being stressed (p=0.016) or having a family history of periodontitis (p=0.002). Implants were placed in 14 of the refractory patients and nine (64%) of these lost at least one implant. In total, 17 (25%) of the implants placed in the refractory group were lost during the study period. A small number of periodontal maintenance patients are refractive to treatment and go on to experience significant tooth loss. These subjects also have a high level of implant complications and failure. Heavy smoking, stress and a family history of periodontal disease were identified as factors associated with a refractory outcome.

Periodontal therapy coupled with active maintenance has been shown to be effective in maintaining periodontal health, however, the question of re-treatment is rarely alluded to in the literature. To quantify the type and extent of re-treatment in a group of patients who had completed a definitive course of periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice. The study also investigated factors associated with the provision of periodontal surgery as a re-treatment modality. A consecutive group of patients who had comprehensive periodontal treatment, which included periodontal surgery, and were subsequently maintained for between 10 and 17 years were studied. One hundred and one patients with an average age at reassessment of 59.4 (standard deviation (SD) 9.0) years were studied. The average length of the review period was 13.1 (SD 1.9) years. In addition to routine maintenance, 50 patients had further re-treatment and 40 of those who were re-treated had periodontal surgery in the study period. Logistic regression showed that independent predictors of surgical re-treatment, with the effects adjusted for other variables in the model, were uncertain or poor prognosis at baseline, erratic or poor post baseline compliance and a family history of periodontal disease. Considerable amounts of re-treatment, including in many cases extensive non-surgical treatment or periodontal surgery, were provided for patients who had surgical periodontal treatment and were subsequently maintained for least 10 years in a specialist periodontal practice.