Long-term treatment costs for aggressive periodontitis in a German population.

AIM: This study assessed the long-term annual costs for treating aggressive periodontitis (AgP) patients. METHODS: A cohort of compliant AgP patients was retrospectively evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planing, open flap debridement, root resections, but not pocket elimination or regenerative surgery) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, including also costs for restorative, endodontic, prosthetic and surgical treatments) were estimated from a mixed payer perspective in Germany. The impact of tooth- and patient-level factors on annual costs was assessed using mixed modelling. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients (mean [SD] age: 35.2/6.8 years), with 26.5 (4.0) teeth (38% with bone loss >50%) were treated. Mean follow-up (retention) time was 16.9 (5.4) years. Total treatment costs per patient and per tooth were 6,998 (3,807) and 267 (148) Euro, respectively. Approximately 87% of the costs were generated during SPT, 13% during APT. Annual patient- and tooth-level costs were 536 (209) and 20.1 (65.0) Euro, respectively. Annual tooth-level costs were significantly increased in patients aged 34 years or older, male patients, former or current smokers, teeth with furcation involvement degree II/III, and bone loss 50%-70%. CONCLUSIONS: Annual treatment costs for treating AgP patients were similar to those found for chronic periodontitis patients. Certain parameters might predict costs.

Scaling and root planing vs. conservative surgery in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

A renewed interest in conservative surgical techniques has been fueled by new technology, changes in referral patterns to periodontists and a desire to achieve periodontal health in the least invasive, most cost-efficient manner possible. Trends suggest that an increasing amount of periodontal care is being provided in the offices of general dentists. If true, it is likely that patients receiving care in these offices will be offered simpler surgical treatment modalities that do not require an extensive armamentarium. The purpose of this article was to review the effectiveness of six relatively simple surgical techniques - gingivectomy, flap debridement, modified Widman flap, excisional new attachment procedure, modified excisional new attachment procedure and laser-assisted new attachment procedure - and to compare the results obtained using these procedures with the well-known clinical benefits of scaling and root planing. The intent was to determine whether the benefits of surgical procedures in the hands of most general dentists extend beyond those of conventional nonsurgical therapy.

A randomized controlled trial on immediate surgery versus root planing in patients with advanced periodontal disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of supportive periodontal care for patients with chronic periodontitis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the evidence for effectiveness of supportive periodontal care (SPC) provided in specialist care and general practice for patients with chronic periodontitis; to construct a model for the cost effectiveness of SPC. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS were performed with hand searching of relevant journals and Workshops of Periodontology. SELECTION CRITERIA: SPC for patients with chronic periodontitis, at least 12 months follow-up and clinical attachment level as a primary outcome. RESULTS: Three articles addressed the question (Nyman et al. 1975, Axelsson & Lindhe 1981, Cortellini et al. 1994): Deltas CAL for patients undergoing "specialist" SPC were 0.1 mm (2 years), 0.2 mm (6 years) and -0.01 mm (3 years) respectively. In generalist care the Deltas CAL during SPC were -2.2, -1.8 and -2.8 mm. Differences between specialist and generalist SPC were an extra 20.59 tooth years and 3.95 mm attachment loss for generalist SPC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were an extra 288 euros for one tooth year or an extra 1503 euros/1 mm reduction in loss of attachment for SPC delivered in specialist care. CONCLUSION: SPC delivered in specialist as compared with general practice will result in greater stability of clinical attachment but this will be achieved at relatively greater cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of periodontal disease control.

Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to evaluate alternative methods of periodontal disease control. The alternatives considered included non-surgical and surgical procedures as well as the use of antimicrobial agents. Data on costs were obtained from American Dental Association publications of average charges for periodontal services. The concept of quality-adjusted tooth-years (QATYs) was developed to provide an outcome measure which could be compared across treatments. The conclusions of this analysis are as follows: (1) Conservative non-surgical treatments for periodontal disease control not only have costs lower than surgical alternatives, as would be expected, but also maximize expected quality-adjusted tooth-years over a wide range of estimates; (2) antimicrobial therapy used as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment is likely to be both effective and cost-effective; and (3) quality of tooth-years is a critical consideration in the determination of outcome of periodontal treatment. For example, when tooth-years are not adjusted for quality, differences between treatments are diminished, and surgical treatment becomes as good as or better than more conservative treatments for some levels of disease severity.

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.