Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro.

OBJECTIVES: Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators' experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1-T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0-T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured. RESULTS: At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training.

BACKGROUND: The current study evaluated whether a new digitized scaling training program (DTP: n = 30; supervisor-student-ratio 1:10) improves the performance of undergraduate dental student during a preclinical course in regard to two different instruments [sonic scalers (AIR) and Gracey curettes (GRA)] compared to a conventional training program (CTP: n = 19; supervisor-student-ratio 1:4). METHODS: All the participants received a two-hour lecture on both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly training program lasting 45 min (10 sessions); one group was supported by DTP. At the end of the training phase, all the participants performed the subgingival scaling of six equivalent test teeth using GRA and AIR. Treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (relative cleaning efficacy, RCE-b) and hard deposits (RCE-d) were recorded. By using a pseudonymized questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, self-assessment of scaling effort, handling, root surface roughness/destruction and effectiveness were evaluated. In addition, personal data such as age, gender, handedness, regularity of playing computer games/consoles and previous dental/technical or medical education were elevated and correlated with cleaning efficacy. RESULTS: The DTP participants showed higher effectiveness in RCE-b compared to those who used the CTP with GRA (71.54% vs. 67.23%, p = 0.004) and AIR (71.75% vs. 62.63%, p ≤ 0.001), and the DTP students were faster with both instruments (p ≤ 0.001). For RCE-d, there was no significant difference between the DTP and CTP groups (GRA p = 0.471; AIR p = 0.158), whereas DTP showed better RCE-d results with GRA versus AIR (84.68% vs. 77.85%, p < 0.001). According to the questionnaire, no significant differences were detected between the training groups in terms of self-assessment, handling, treatment time, root surface roughness/destruction or effectiveness of the instruments. The CTP group favored AIR compared to GRA regarding the fatigue effect. The CTP and playing computer games/consoles regularly was correlated with lower RCE-b, whereas previous education in medicine/dentistry was correlated with higher RCE-b values. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the DTP with a reduced supervision effort compared to the CTP resulted in higher effectiveness and lower instrumentation time for removing simulated biofilms.

Long-term periodontitis treatment costs according to the 2018 classification of periodontal diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if long-term treatment costs in periodontitis patients differ between stage III vs. IV and grade B vs. C according to the 2018 classification of periodontal diseases. METHODS: A cohort of 231 periodontitis patients (followed over a mean of 18.4 years) was evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planning, open flap debridement, root resections) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, including also restorative, endodontic, prosthetic and surgical treatment) were estimated from a mixed payer-perspective in Germany (in Euro 2020). Multi-dimensional staging and grading was applied. The impact of stage, grade, sex and age on total and annual costs was assessed. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total and annual treatment costs were 7154 (2554) Euro and 437 (222) Euro. Costs were generated during SPT (92 %) and by periodontal treatment (88 %) and decreased significantly with longer follow-up (p < 0.001). Total costs were 7120 (2692) Euro in stage III (n = 154) vs. 7221 (2271) Euro in stage IV (n = 77; p > 0.05), and 6256 (1605) Euro in grade B (n = 35) vs. 7314 (2660) Euro in grade C (n = 196; p < 0.001). Annual costs were 426 (219) Euro vs. 459 (228) Euro for stage III vs. stage IV (p > 0.05) and 308 (163) Euro vs. 460 (224) Euro for grade B vs. grade C (p < 0.001). Multivariable modelling found grade, but not stage, sex and age significantly associated with costs. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, and in patients with severe periodontitis who were systematically treated long-term, grading, but not staging was associated with costs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment costs were higher in patients with more progressive periodontitis and were found to decrease during follow-up. Dentists need to consider costs during treatment planning and communication with patients.

Long-term treatment costs of chronic periodontitis patients in Germany.

AIM: We assessed the long-term costs for treating chronic periodontitis (CP) patients. METHODS: A cohort of compliant CP patients was retrospectively evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planning, open flap debridement, root resections) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT including periodontal, 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: Two hundred and seventy-three patients (mean ± SD age: 49.6 ± 8.8 years), with 24.3 ± 4.5 teeth, were included. Mean follow-up was 18.7 ± 5.7 years. Total treatment costs per patient and per tooth were 6,146 ± 2,236 and 222 ± 98 Euro, respectively. Costs were generated mainly by periodontal therapy and during SPT. Annualized patient- and tooth-level costs were 348 ± 159 and 12.4 ± 5.7 Euro, respectively. Annual costs increased significantly in older patients, regular attenders, those with fewer teeth (<24) at baseline and teeth with higher probing pocket depths or mobility 3 at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Annual costs for treating CP patients were lower than those found for aggressive periodontitis patients. Regular attendance and having more severe periodontitis came with higher costs per year.