Screening for type 2 diabetes and periodontitis patients (CODAPT-My©): a multidisciplinary care approach.

BACKGROUND: The practice of referring diabetic patients for dental intervention has been poor despite awareness and knowledge of the oral health effects of diabetes. Likewise, dentists treating patients receiving diabetes treatment are rarely updated on the glycaemic status and as a result, the opportunity for shared management of these patients is missed. This study aimed to provide a standardised care pathway which will initiate screening for diabetes from dental clinics and link patients with primary care for them to receive optimised care for glycaemic control. METHOD: A Modified Delphi technique was employed to obtain consensus on recommendations, based on current evidence and best care practices to screen for diabetes among patients attending dental clinics for periodontitis. Expert panel members were recruited using snowball technique where the experts comprised Family Medicine Specialists (5), Periodontists (6), Endocrinologists (3) and Clinical Pharmacists (4) who are involved in management of patients with diabetes at public and private healthcare facilities. Care algorithms were designed based on existing public healthcare services. RESULTS: The CODAPT© panel recommends referral to primary care for further evaluation of glycaemic status if patients diagnosed with periodontitis record fasting capillary blood glucose levels ≥ 5.6 mmol/L. Intervention treatment options for prediabetes are listed, and emphasis on feedback to the dental healthcare team is outlined specifically. CONCLUSION: The CODAPT© care pathway has the potential to link dental clinics with primary care for diagnosis and/or optimised treatment of prediabetes/diabetes among patients receiving periodontitis treatment.

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.

Amoxicillin and metronidazole as an adjunctive treatment in generalized aggressive periodontitis at initial therapy or re-treatment: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we showed that systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin significantly improved the outcomes of non-surgical debridement in generalized aggressive periodontitis patients. This study aimed to observe whether re-treatment with adjunctive antimicrobials would give the placebo group benefits comparable with the test group. METHODS: Thirty-eight of 41 subjects, from the initial 6-month trial, completed the second phase, re-treatment of sites with remaining pockets 5 mm. Subjects on placebo in phase one, received adjunctive antibiotics for 7 days. Clinical parameters were collected at 2 months posttreatment (8 months from baseline). RESULTS: Patients who received antibiotics at initial therapy, showed statistically significant improvement in pocket depth reduction and in the % of sites improving above clinically relevant thresholds, compared with patients who received antibiotics at re-treatment. In deep pockets (7 mm), the mean difference was 0.9 mm (p=0.003) and in moderate pockets (4-6 mm) it was 0.4 mm (p=0.036). For pockets converting from 5 to 4 mm, this was 83% compared with 67% (p=0.041) and pockets converting from 4 to 3 mm was 63% compared with 49% (p=0.297). CONCLUSIONS: At 8 months, patients who had antibiotics at initial therapy showed statistically significant benefits compared with those who had antibiotics at re-treatment.

National Economic Burden Associated with Management of Periodontitis in Malaysia.

Objectives. The aim of this study is to estimate the economic burden associated with the management of periodontitis in Malaysia from the societal perspective. Methods. We estimated the economic burden of periodontitis by combining the disease prevalence with its treatment costs. We estimated treatment costs (with 2012 value of Malaysian Ringgit) using the cost-of-illness approach and included both direct and indirect costs. We used the National Oral Health Survey for Adults (2010) data to estimate the prevalence of periodontitis and 2010 national census data to estimate the adult population at risk for periodontitis. Results. The economic burden of managing all cases of periodontitis at the national level from the societal perspective was approximately MYR 32.5 billion, accounting for 3.83% of the 2012 Gross Domestic Product of the country. It would cost the nation MYR 18.3 billion to treat patients with moderate periodontitis and MYR 13.7 billion to treat patients with severe periodontitis. Conclusion. The economic burden of periodontitis in Malaysia is substantial and comparable with that of other chronic diseases in the country. This is attributable to its high prevalence and high cost of treatment. Judicious application of promotive, preventive, and curative approaches to periodontitis management is decidedly warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Periodontitis Management in Public Sector Specialist Periodontal Clinics: A Societal Perspective Research in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the national public sector specialist periodontal program in the management of periodontal disease. METHODS: This was a multicenter, time motion, prospective, economic evaluation study involving a total of 165 patients with periodontitis recruited from five selected specialist periodontal clinics. Treatment costs were measured in 2012 Malaysian ringgit (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using step-down and activity-based costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. A cost-effectiveness analysis was done to compare the specialist periodontal program with a hypothetical scenario in which patients attend biannual dental visits only for regular dental check-up and scaling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was defined as the difference in cost per gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and clinical attachment levels (CALs). One-way scenario-based sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the uncertainty of inputs. RESULTS: The average cost for managing patients with periodontitis was MYR 376 per outpatient visit and MYR 2820 per annum. Clinically, a gain of an average of 0.3 mm of CAL was attained at post-treatment (paired t test, P < .001). Patients gained an average of 3.8 QALY post-treatment (paired t test, P < .001). For cost-effectiveness analysis, the specialist periodontal program was more cost-effective than the hypothesized biannual dental visits, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of MYR 451 and MYR 5713 per additional QALY and millimeter CAL gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It is very cost-effective for the public sector to provide specialist periodontal treatment for patients with periodontitis according to the World Health Organization criteria and when compared with conventional biannual dental treatment.