RESUMO
AIM: To compare immediate surgery to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of advanced periodontitis focusing on the prevalence of residual pockets after treatment and cost-effectiveness (1); to elucidate the adjunctive effects of azithromycin in a second-treatment phase (2) up to 36 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (18 males, 21 females; mean age: 54.6) received oral hygiene instructions and were randomly allocated to surgery (n = 19) or SRP (n = 20). Patients with residual pockets (≥6 mm) at 6 months received re-debridement of these sites and systemic azithromycin. Clinical measurements were performed at 12, 24 and 36 months whereby residual pockets underwent re-debridement. Patients were evaluated in terms of clinical response parameters and cost-effectiveness. Chair-time was used to assess the financial impact of treatment. RESULTS: Only six patients in the surgery group required additional treatment at 6 months, whereas 14 patients in the SRP underwent this therapy. Both treatment arms were equally effective in terms of clinical outcome demonstrating <2% residual pockets at 36 months. Surgery imposed an extra 746 Euro on the patient up to 6 months compared to SRP. At 36 months, 69 Euro of this amount could be offset due to the lower need for re-treatment during maintenance phase. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery was ultimately associated with a significantly lower need for re-treatment during supportive care, however, at significantly higher costs over the 3 years.
RESUMO
AIM: To compare immediate surgery to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of advanced periodontal disease focusing on the prevalence of residual sites and cost-effectiveness (1); to evaluate the adjunctive effects of azithromycin in a second treatment phase (2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients (18 males, 21 females; mean age: 54.6) received oral hygiene instructions and were randomly allocated to surgery (n = 19) or SRP (n = 20). Patients with residual pockets (≥6 mm) at 6 months received re-debridement of these sites and systemic azithromycin. Treatment groups were followed up to 12 months and evaluated in terms of clinical response parameters and cost-effectiveness. Chair-time was used to assess the financial impact of treatment. RESULTS: Both treatment arms were equally effective in terms of clinical outcome demonstrating less than 1% residual pockets at 12 months. Surgery imposed an extra 746 Euro on the patient up to 6 months when compared to SRP. At 12 months, 46 Euro of this amount could be offset as a result of a reduced need for supportive care. Only 6 patients in the surgery group needed systemic antibiotics, whereas 14 patients in the SRP needed such additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although 700 Euro could be saved on average by performing SRP instead of surgery, the latter significantly reduced the need for supportive care and systemic antibiotics.