Incorporating severity and risk as factors to the Fardal cost-effectiveness model to create a cost-benefit model for periodontal treatment.

BACKGROUND: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation. METHODS: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk. RESULTS: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $1,405 to $4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $4,787. CONCLUSION: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.

The Oral Health Information Suite (OHIS): its use in the management of periodontal disease.

Health care costs continue to increase at a rapid rate. Dental costs alone have risen from $31.5 billion in 1990 to $70.3 billion in 2002, outpacing inflation by 160 percent. Payers for health care services have no means to evaluate the value of these large expenditures. Quantified information is not available regarding a patient's condition prior to and after treatment nor on the probability of future disease. The absence of this information prevents dentists from responding effectively to challenges by payers and patients, and specifically prevents dentists from effectively influencing the quality of periodontal care. We have developed a user-friendly Internet-based technology that quantifies risk for periodontitis and periodontal disease severity and extent and generates recommended treatments and interventions. A caries risk assessment tool has also been developed, and an oral cancer assessment tool is being developed. This technology, designated the Oral Health Information Suite (OHIS), provides quantitative information to the clinician and patient as an aid to diagnosis and to facilitate individual, needs-based treatment planning. OHIS enables successful application of the wellness model of oral health care, which may be expected to result in more uniform and accurate clinical decision making, improved oral health, reduction in the need for complex periodontal therapy, reduction in oral health care costs, and improved clinician productivity and income. It also will permit patients to become more involved in their oral health care, payers to quantify and predict their health care expenditures, dentists to experience an increase in trust and respect, and periodontists to be more properly consulted regarding periodontal care.

Use of risk assessment in attaining and maintaining oral health.

The cost of health care is increasing rapidly. A transition from the "repair" to a "wellness" model of oral health care that minimizes the occurrence of disease and the need for complex treatment may reduce costs and improve oral health. Quantification of risk is essential for successful use of the wellness model. Subjective risk assessment by expert clinicians is too variable to be useful in clinical decision making. However, user-friendly Internet-based technology has been developed that provides a consistently accurate and valid quantified risk assessment for periodontitis, as well as a quantified measure of disease severity and extent. The numeric information helps clinicians and patients make diagnoses and generate individual, needs-based treatment plans. This technology enables successful application of the wellness model of care in day-to-day dental practice. Use of the wellness model may result in more uniform and accurate periodontal clinical decision making, improved oral health, less need for complex periodontal therapy, lower oral health care costs, and improved clinician productivity and income.

Assessing periodontal disease risk: a comparison of clinicians' assessment versus a computerized tool.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to compare risk scores assigned by subjective expert clinician opinion with quantitative scores generated for the same subjects using the Periodontal Risk Calculator, or PRC. METHODS: The authors assembled a group of 107 subjects and performed standard periodontal examinations. The authors entered the resulting information into the PRC and calculated risk scores for two and four years, assuming no treatment would be performed. Using the same subject records, three groups of expert clinicians assigned risk scores for years 2 and 4. The authors analyzed the data to reveal the extent of interevaluator variation and the level of agreement between expert clinician scores and PRC scores. RESULTS: The extent of variation among scores assigned by individual expert clinicians was greater than the authors had expected. Expert clinicians consistently assigned more subjects to PRC risk group 2 and fewer to risk group 5 than did the PRC. The authors observed very high heterogeneity in the risk scores expert clinicians assigned to patients in each of the PRC-assigned groups. Thus, expert clinicians varied greatly in evaluating risk and, relative to the PRC, they appeared to underestimate periodontitis risk, especially for high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The authors' observations suggest that use of risk scores generated for individual patients by subjective expert clinician opinion about risk in periodontal clinical decision making could result in the misapplication of treatment for some patients and support the use of an objective tool such as the PRC. Use of the PRC over time may be expected to result in more uniform and accurate periodontal clinical decision making, improved oral health, reduction in the need for complex therapy and reduction in health care costs.