Success rates in periodontal treatment as related to choice of evaluation criteria - Presentation of an evaluation criteria staircase for cost-benefit use
D. Lundgren et al., Success rates in periodontal treatment as related to choice of evaluation criteria - Presentation of an evaluation criteria staircase for cost-benefit use, J CLIN PER, 28(1), 2001, pp. 23-30
Background, aims: The aim of the present investigation was to determine the
success rates of treatment of 36 patients with moderate to advanced period
ontal disease as related to different clinical and radiographic criteria.
Method: The treatment comprised oral hygiene education, subgingival scaling
and root planing, and when judged indicated, periodontal surgery An "evalu
ation criteria staircase" comprising 5 levels was introduced to be utilized
for evaluation of the treatment results in 4 proximal sites (1 in each qua
drant) which were followed for 3 years. The highest level of the staircase
(level 1) is the most challenging and comprises the traditonal criteria for
"perfect" periodontal health, while the lower levels are gradually less de
manding.
Results: At the follow-up examination 3 years after active treatment, 52.1%
of the experimental sites fulfilled the criteria for successful treatment
according to level 1. On the lowest level (level 5) which only required no
further loss of alveolar bone for treatment to be considered "successful",
the number of such treated sites reached 95.1%. The present data showed tha
t even if level 5 was accepted as the evaluation criterion for "success", r
esulting in very few failed sites (4.9%), these sites may demand considerab
le extra clinical time and costs far retreatment because of their distribut
ion among many individuals (13.2%). This clinical time increases substantia
lly if higher levels of success are desired. From a cost-benefit point of v
iew, it is therefore of utmost importance that not only patient compliance
but also disease resistance and the value of the affected tooth for the den
tition are taken into consideration when the indications for retreatment ar
e weighed. This is especially important since many sites were found to be n
on-progressive for a long time, even though they did not exhibit perfect pe
riodontal health.
Conclusions: It is suggested that the "evaluation criteria staircase" prese
nted in this paper might be a helpful clinical instrument for decision-maki
ng in individually designed and site-related retreatments of patients with
periodontal disease.