Compliance with supportive periodontal therapy among patients with aggressive and chronic periodontitis

Agrawal, Neeraj; Jain, Rajendra Singh; Jain, Manish; Agarwal, Kavita; Dubey, Aashutosh

doi:10.2334/josnusd.57.249

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When comparing responses to GTR treatment, it should be underscored that compliance with supportive periodontal therapy among patients with AgP and ChP may differ. Significantly better compliance was reported among patients with AgP (57.7%) than among those with ChP (30.6%) [39]. As AgP results in rapid destruction of alveolar bone, tooth mobility, pathological tooth migration, and early tooth loss, fear of such consequences could improve compliance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: subtraction radiography outcomes, prognostic variables, and patient morbidity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The main objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate bone/graft density alterations by digital subtraction radiography; (2) to determine factors associated with favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes, and (3) to report on patient morbidity after guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in aggressive periodontitis (AgP) patients. Materials and methods Adapting a split-mouth design, 30 comparative intrabony defects in 15 patients were randomly treated with xenogenic graft plus modified perforated membranes (MPM, tests) or xenogenic graft plus standard collagen membranes (CM, controls). The time period of observation was 12 months. Results There were significant improvements in clinical and radiographic parameters within each group, without intergroup differences. However, higher PPD reduction for three-wall defects was noted in MPM sites (5.22 versus 3.62 mm; p = 0.033). Moreover, a significant gain in bone/graft density of 4.9% from 6 to 12 months post-operatively was observed in test sites. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that morphology of intrabony defects was a predictor of CAL gain (p = 0.06), while independent prognostic variables effecting changes in bone/graft density were radiographic defect depth (p = 0.025) and radiographic angle (p = 0.033). The majority of patients reported some discomfort, pain, and edema with mild intensity without any significant differences between treatment modalities. Conclusions This study demonstrated enhanced bone/graft density gain after GTR with MPM, which may indicate greater area of new bone formation. Independent variables effecting treatment outcomes were intrabony defect morphology, radiographic defect depth, and radiographic angle. Clinical relevance This study supports the regenerative treatment of intrabony defects in AgP patients and identifies some variables with prognostic value.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: subtraction radiography outcomes, prognostic variables, and patient morbidity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, 39 articles were eligible to be included in the systematic review. In addition, 4 articles were added from the references (Fardal, ; Kim, Lee, Chang, & Um, ; Konig, Plagmann, Langenfeld, & Kocher, ; Wilson et al, ); hence, a total number of 31 cohort studies (Agrawal, Jain, Jain, Agarwal, & Dubey, ; Cardaropoli & Gaveglio, ; de Carvalho et al, ; Checchi, Pelliccioni, Gatto, & Kelescian, ; Delatola, Adonogianaki, & Ioannidou, ; Demetriou, Tsami‐Pandi, & Parashis, ; Demirel & Efeodlu, ; Famili & Short, ; Fardal, Johannessen, & Linden, ; Frisch, Ziebolz, Vach, & Ratka‐Kruger, ; Galgut, ; Hu, Lin, Ho, & Chou, ; Kakudate, Morita, & Kawanami, ; Kim et al, ; Konig et al, ; Mendoza, Newcomb, & Nixon, ; Mendoza et al, ; Miyamoto, Kumagai, Jones, Dyke, & Nunn, ; Nicholls, ; Novaes & Novaes, ; Novaes et al, ; Novaes, Novaes, Moraes, Campos, & Grisi, ; Ojima, Hanioka, & Shizukuishi, ; Ojima et al, ; Perrell‐Jones & Ireland, ; Ramseier et al, ; Si, Wang, Li, Zhao, & Pan, ; Soolari & Rokn, ; Wilson et al, ; Wilson, Hale, & Temple, ; Zeza et al, ), 4 cross‐sectional studies (Fenol & Mathew, ; Gokulanathan, Balan, Aravind, & Thangavelu, ; Monje, Wang, & Nart, ; Shah, Thomas, Bhandari, & Mehta, ), 3 case–control studies (Becker, Karp, Becker, & Berg, ; Costa et al, ; Modin, Abadji, Adler, & Jansson, ) and 1 case series (Fardal, ) were finally included (Figure ). Studies presented follow‐ups ranging between 45 days and more than 20 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri‐implant therapy: A systematic review

Amerio

Mainas

Petrova

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The present systematic review aimed at assessing the degree of compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy as well as identifying patient-related factors that could potentially play a role on patient compliance. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were carried out to assess patient compliance during maintenance. Main outcomes were compliance definition, degree of compliance and patient-related factors. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data reported across the studies, descriptive statistics were performed to shed light on compliance rate and the patient-related factors. Results: A total of 39 articles were included. No consensus regarding the definition of "compliance" was found in the analysed literature. The percentage of fully compliers and non-compliers ranged between 3.3%-86.8% and 1.69%-64.4%, respectively. Smoking habit and history of periodontal disease were found to be associated with patients' compliance. Inadequate information/motivation was found as the main patient-reported reason for non-compliance. Conclusions: Despite the high variability across studies, compliance with the supportive periodontal/peri-implant maintenance therapy was found to be unsatisfactory. Attitudes, psychological traits and construct associated with compliance remain largely unknown, and still, lack of information and motivation are paramount to be addressed during the periodontal/implant therapy to increase patient compliance.

show abstract

“…In a large study with 1,336 SPT patients, Ramseier et al also determined that longer SPT intervals have a statistically clear influence on the compliance with SPT visits (Ramseier et al, ). Other studies also found low compliance rates with scheduled SPT visits (Agrawal, Jain, Jain, Agarwal, & Dubey, ; Cohen et al, ; Mendoza, Newcomb, & Nixon, ; Novaes & Novaes, ; Oliveira Costa et al, ), with most patients leaving SPT within the first year of APT (Mendoza et al, ; Novaes & Novaes, ). The link between risk and adherence seems plausible, since the more SPT visits an individual has to attend the more likely it is that he exceeds the interval or misses a visit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, Eickholz et al defined non‐compliance as extension of the recommended SPT interval at least once over 100% (Eickholz et al, ). Agrawal et al (Agrawal et al, ) classified erratic compliers, as patients who did not attend all but >50% of the scheduled visits and non‐compliers, as patients with <50% of the visits. Costa et al (Costa et al, ) differentiated regular compliers who attended all SPT visits from erratic compliers who missed any of the SPT visits.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to long‐term supportive periodontal therapy in groups with different periodontal risk profiles

Sonnenschein

Kohnen

Ruetters

et al. 2020

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To examine changes of the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) of patients during long‐term supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and to examine the adherence to recommended visit intervals. Material and Methods Retrospective data from 372 SPT patients were evaluated before and after active periodontal therapy (APT) and at least 5 years later. After APT and regularly during SPT, PRA was performed for all included patients (low‐risk/moderate‐risk/high‐risk profile) and they were advised to adhere to 3/6‐/or 12‐month intervals accordingly. The adherence (fully/partially/insufficiently/non‐adherent) to SPT intervals was assessed retrospectively. Results Initially, 38 patients had a low‐risk, 217 a moderate‐risk and 94 a high‐risk profile. Five years after APT, 55.3% of the low‐risk, 71.9% of the moderate‐risk and 54.3% of the high‐risk patients had not changed their initial risk. 19.5% of the moderate‐risk group shifted to “high‐risk” and 8.6% to “low‐risk”. 66% of low‐risk, 34% of moderate‐risk and 13% of high‐risk patients fully adhered to SPT. The portion of non‐adherent patients was the highest within the high‐risk group (18%–43%). The level of adherence was associated with number of lost teeth and mean PPD (p < .05). Conclusions Risk profiles can change during SPT. A high level of adherence to SPT intervals based on PRA positively influences the periodontal status.

show abstract

Compliance with supportive periodontal therapy among patients with aggressive and chronic periodontitis

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: subtraction radiography outcomes, prognostic variables, and patient morbidity

Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: subtraction radiography outcomes, prognostic variables, and patient morbidity

Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri‐implant therapy: A systematic review

Adherence to long‐term supportive periodontal therapy in groups with different periodontal risk profiles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About