Øystein Fardal

A comparison of teeth and implants during maintenance therapy in terms of the number of disease‐free years and costs ‐ an in vivo internal control study

BACKGROUND Little is known about the cost minimization and cost effectiveness involved in maintaining teeth and implants for patients treated for periodontal disease. MATERIALS & METHODS A retrospective study was carried out encompassing all patients who had initial periodontal treatment followed by implant placement and maintenance therapy in a specialist practice in Norway. The neighbouring tooth and the contra-lateral tooth were used as controls. The number of disease-free years and the extra cost over and above maintenance treatment for both teeth and implants were recorded. RESULTS The sample consisted of 43 patients with an average age of 67.4 years. The patients had 847 teeth at the initial examination and received 119 implants. Two implants were removed 13 and 22 years after insertion. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 53.5% at the patient level and 31.1% at the implant level. The prevalence of periodontitis was 53.4% at the patient level and 7.6% at the tooth level. The mean number of disease-free years was: implants: 8.66; neighbouring tooth: 9.08; contra-lateral teeth: 9.93. These mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. The extra cost of maintaining the implants was about five times higher for implants than for teeth. CONCLUSION The number of disease-free years was the same for neighbouring teeth, contra-lateral teeth and implants. However, due to the high prevalence of peri-implantitis, the cost of maintaining implants was much higher than the cost of maintaining teeth.

Tooth loss and implant outcomes in patients refractory to treatment in a periodontal practice

AIM The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with continued significant tooth loss due to periodontal reasons during maintenance following periodontal therapy in a specialist periodontal practice in Norway. MATERIAL AND METHODS A case-control design was used. Refractory cases were patients who lost multiple teeth during a maintenance period of 13.4 (range 8-19) years following definitive periodontal treatment in a specialist practice. Controls were age- and gender-matched maintenance patients from the same practice. Characteristics and treatment outcomes were assessed, and all teeth classified as being lost due to periodontal disease during follow-up were identified. The use of implants in refractory cases and any complications relating to such a treatment were recorded. RESULTS Only 27 (2.2%) patients who received periodontal treatment between 1986 and 1998 in a specialist practice met the criteria for inclusion in the refractory to treatment group. Each refractory subject lost 10.4 (range 4-16) teeth, which represented 50% of the teeth present at baseline. The rate of tooth loss in the refractory group was 0.78 teeth per year, which was 35 times greater than that in the control group. Multivariate analysis indicated that being in the refractory group was predicted by heavy smoking (p=0.026), being stressed (p=0.016) or having a family history of periodontitis (p=0.002). Implants were placed in 14 of the refractory patients and nine (64%) of these lost at least one implant. In total, 17 (25%) of the implants placed in the refractory group were lost during the study period. CONCLUSIONS A small number of periodontal maintenance patients are refractive to treatment and go on to experience significant tooth loss. These subjects also have a high level of implant complications and failure. Heavy smoking, stress and a family history of periodontal disease were identified as factors associated with a refractory outcome.

Impact of anxiety on pain perception associated with periodontal and implant surgery in a private practice.

BACKGROUND There are limited data on pain perception after periodontal or implant surgery or how pain perception is affected by presurgical anxiety. METHODS Presurgical anxiety and surgical pain perceptions were measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores and by interview of patients (N = 102) undergoing periodontal or implant therapy in a private periodontal specialty practice in Norway. RESULTS Patients reported that bad taste, receiving the local anesthetic, and excessive fluid in the mouth were the most uncomfortable experiences associated with periodontal or implant surgery. Analysis of identical responses to these questions showed that there was low intrapatient agreement for uncomfortable experiences (κ = 0.18), but there was reasonably good agreement for comfortable experiences (κ = 0.76). There were no significant differences between repeated VAS scores for pain perception (P = 0.91) or anxiety (P = 0.75) from two consecutive surgeries. There were no significant differences of VAS scores for perception of discomfort for periodontal surgery (9.9 ± 17.0) compared to implant surgery (16.7 ± 24.2; P >0.2). Presurgical anxiety scores were higher for implant surgery (45.5 ± 33.4) than for periodontal surgery (19.5 ± 28.1; P <0.01). Patients with high pretreatment anxiety scores reported that periodontal and implant surgery were more uncomfortable than patients with low anxiety scores (20.5 ± 25.6 versus 0.45 ± 1; P <0.001). VAS perception and anxiety scores did not change on first-time through fourth-time surgeries, but retreatment surgery patients recorded higher perception and anxiety VAS scores than patients undergoing surgery for the third or fourth time (P <0.01). Females recorded significantly higher anxiety scores than males (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION For periodontal surgery and implant treatments pain perception is affected by the level of presurgical anxiety.

Long-term outcomes for cross-arch stabilizing bridges in periodontal maintenance patients--a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND Cross-arch bridges are used to stabilize teeth for patients with reduced periodontal support. Little is known about technical or biological complications, whether teeth and implants can be combined in this type of bridge and the long-term effects on tooth loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients treated in a specialist periodontal practice who received cross-arch stabilizing bridgework and were subsequently maintained for at least 7 years were included in the study. The patients were selected from all patients who underwent initial periodontal therapy after 1986 in a Norwegian periodontal practice. The bridges were assessed for biological and technical complications. Bridges retained by teeth or by a combination of teeth and implants were included in the study. RESULTS Ninety-four rigid fixed bridges (77 teeth supported, 17 teeth and implant supported) in 80 patients (46 females, 34 males) were observed for an average of 10 years (range 7-22 years). In four patients, a bridge became loose and had to be re-cemented, and in one case the metal framework of a bridge fractured and the bridge had to be remade. In total, eight abutment teeth were lost from five patients but no implant abutments were lost. Overall, a higher rate of tooth loss was observed for patients provided with stabilizing bridges compared with control maintenance patients not treated with bridgework (p<0.0001); however, the rates in both groups were very low. CONCLUSION Cross-arch stabilizing bridges constructed for periodontal patients as part of their periodontal maintenance therapy had few complications and were associated with low rates of abutment tooth loss. Combining teeth and implants did not affect the performance of these bridges.

The Lifetime Direct Cost of Periodontal Treatment: A Case Study From a Norwegian Specialist Practice

BACKGROUND Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. METHODS Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. RESULTS Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤ 4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤ 3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied.

Management of periodontal disease in patients using calcium channel blockers – gingival overgrowth, prescribed medications, treatment responses and added treatment costs

OBJECTIVES Gingival overgrowth (GO) is an adverse drug reaction in patients using calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Little is known about the effects of CCBs on the management of periodontal diseases. The aim of this study was to assess how the use of CCBs affects the long-term supportive treatment and outcomes in patients undergoing periodontal therapy. METHODS All patients using CCBs during the initial treatment and/or the supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) were selected from a periodontal practice. Patients were scored using a Gingival Overgrowth Index (GOI). The effects of CCB types and dosages were assessed in terms of the frequency and the severity of GO, treatment responses, substitutions and extra treatment costs. Mean values, Standard Deviation (SD) and range were calculated. The Mann-Whitney test was used to assess statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) for GO between patients with good and poor oral hygiene, differences between before and after terminating or replacing the CCBs, possible differences between drug dosages (Dihydropyridine 5 mg and 10 mg) and differences between three drug combinations (CCB and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (IRAS), CCB and non-IRAS, CCB and statins). RESULTS One hundred and twenty-four patients (58 females, 66 males, 4.6% of the patient population) were using CCBs. 103 patients were assessed. Average age was 66.53 years (SD. 9.89, range 42-88) and the observation time was 11.30 years (SD 8.06, range 1-27). Eighty-nine patients had GO, 75 of these required treatment for GO. Terminating or replacing with alternatives to CCBs resulted in significant decreases in GO (p = 0.00016, p = 0.00068) respectively. No differences were found between good and poor oral hygiene (p = 0.074), drug dosages or the various drug combinations. Surgical treatment was more effective than non-surgical treatment in controlling the GO. Long-term tooth loss was 0.11 teeth per patient per year. Forty-two patients needed re-treatments for GO, resulting in an extra life cost per patient of €13471 (discounted €4177). CONCLUSION The majority of patients (86.4%) using CCBs experienced GO. 47.2% of these experienced recurrence(s) of GO during the SPT and needed re-treatments with resulting added costs. The long-term tooth loss was considerably higher for patients using CCBs than for other patients groups from the same practice setting.

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)

Rare case of keratin-producing multiple gingival cysts

1,405 to

Tooth loss during maintenance following periodontal treatment in a periodontal practice in Norway

4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than

Patient Perceptions of Periodontal Therapy Completed in a Periodontal Practice

8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was