4.6 Article

Effort and costs of tooth preservation in supportive periodontal treatment in a German population

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 669-676

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01409.x

关键词

costs; long-term success after systematic periodontal therapy; periodontal risk factors; supportive periodontal therapy (SPT); tooth loss

资金

  1. Institut fut Augewandte Immunologie (IAI), Zuchwill, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Objectives Assessment of effort (number of visits) and costs of tooth preservation 10 years after initiation of anti-infective therapy. Material and Methods Data of 98 patients who had received active periodontal treatment 10 years ago by the same examiner were analysed to gather information on effort and costs of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Clinical examination, interleukin-1 (IL-1) polymorphism test, smoking, search of patients' files (i.e. initial diagnosis), as well as a questionnaire on medical history and socioeconomic data were performed. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate linear regression analysis. Results During 10 years of SPT patients had 14.8 +/- 7.4 visits. Number of visits was statistically significantly higher for individuals with a mean plaque control record >= 24%. The number of subgingival scalings per tooth ranged from 0 to 14 (mean: 1.17). On tooth level several confounders could be identified: tooth type, initial bone loss, furcation involvement, abutment status, and previous regenerative surgery (p <= 0.003). Costs for therapy per tooth during SPT ranged from euro1.21 to euro404.72 with mean costs between euro60.52 and euro91.99. On tooth level the tooth type, initial bone loss, abutment status, furcation involvement, and previous regenerative surgery showed statistical significance (p <= 0.002). Conclusion Costs for tooth retention via SPT are relatively low compared with alternatives (e.g. implants or bridgework) even in periodontally impaired teeth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据