Cargando…

Examining the impact of oral hygiene advice and/or scale and polish on periodontal disease: the IQuaD cluster factorial randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of different frequencies of scale and polish (S&P) treatments in combination with different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA). Design Multi-centre, multi-level cluster randomised factorial open trial with blinded outcome evaluatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clarkson, Jan, Ramsay, Craig, Lamont, Thomas, Goulao, Beatriz, Worthington, Helen, Heasman, Peter, Norrie, John, Boyers, Dwayne, Duncan, Anne, van der Pol, Marjon, Young, Linda, Macpherson, Lorna, McCracken, Giles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7908958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33637926
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2662-3
Descripción
Sumario:Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of different frequencies of scale and polish (S&P) treatments in combination with different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA). Design Multi-centre, multi-level cluster randomised factorial open trial with blinded outcome evaluation. UK dental practices were cluster randomised to deliver OHA as usual or personalised. In a separate randomisation, patients were allocated to receive S&P 6-monthly, 12-monthly or never. Setting UK primary dental care. Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups. Main outcome measures The percent of sites with bleeding on probing, patient confidence in self-care, incremental net benefits (INB) over three years. Results Sixty-three practices and 1,877 adult patients were randomised and 1,327 analysed (clinical outcome). There was no statistically significant or clinically important difference in gingival bleeding between the three S&P groups (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference 0.87% sites, 95% CI: 1.6 to 3.3, p = 0.48) or between personalised or usual OHA groups (difference -2.5% sites, -95%CI: -8.3 to 3.3, p = 0.39), or oral hygiene self-efficacy (cognitive impact) between either group (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063, p = 0.543). The general population place a high value on, and are willing to pay for, S&P services. However, from a dental health perspective, none of the interventions were cost-effective. Conclusion Results suggest S&P treatments and delivering brief personalised OHA provide no clinical benefit and are therefore an inefficient approach to improving dental health (38% of sites were bleeding whatever intervention was received). However, the general population value both interventions. Zusatzmaterial online: Zu diesem Beitrag sind unter 10.1038/s41415-021-2662-3 für autorisierte Leser zusätzliche Dateien abrufbar.