Search

Aim To compare immediate surgery to scaling and root planing ( SRP) in the treatment of advanced periodontitis focusing on the prevalence of residual pockets after treatment and cost-effectiveness (1); to elucidate the adjunctive effects of azithromycin in a second-treatment phase (2) up to 36 months. Materials and Methods Thirty-nine patients (18 males, 21 females; mean age: 54.6) received oral hygiene instructions and were randomly allocated to surgery ( n = 19) or SRP ( n = 20). Patients with residual pockets (≥6 mm) at 6 months received re-debridement of these sites and systemic azithromycin. Clinical measurements were performed at 12, 24 and 36 months whereby residual pockets underwent re-debridement. Patients were evaluated in terms of clinical response parameters and cost-effectiveness. Chair-time was used to assess the financial impact of treatment. Results Only six patients in the surgery group required additional treatment at 6 months, whereas 14 patients in the SRP underwent this therapy. Both treatment arms were equally effective in terms of clinical outcome demonstrating <2% residual pockets at 36 months. Surgery imposed an extra 746 Euro on the patient up to 6 months compared to SRP. At 36 months, 69 Euro of this amount could be offset due to the lower need for re-treatment during maintenance phase. Conclusions Surgery was ultimately associated with a significantly lower need for re-treatment during supportive care, however, at significantly higher costs over the 3 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To compare immediate surgery to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of advanced periodontal disease focusing on the prevalence of residual sites and cost-effectiveness (1); to evaluate the adjunctive effects of azithromycin in a second treatment phase (2). Materials and Methods Thirty-nine patients (18 males, 21 females; mean age: 54.6) received oral hygiene instructions and were randomly allocated to surgery ( n = 19) or SRP ( n = 20). Patients with residual pockets (≥6 mm) at 6 months received re-debridement of these sites and systemic azithromycin. Treatment groups were followed up to 12 months and evaluated in terms of clinical response parameters and cost-effectiveness. Chair-time was used to assess the financial impact of treatment. Results Both treatment arms were equally effective in terms of clinical outcome demonstrating less than 1% residual pockets at 12 months. Surgery imposed an extra 746 Euro on the patient up to 6 months when compared to SRP. At 12 months, 46 Euro of this amount could be offset as a result of a reduced need for supportive care. Only 6 patients in the surgery group needed systemic antibiotics, whereas 14 patients in the SRP needed such additional treatment. Conclusions Although 700 Euro could be saved on average by performing SRP instead of surgery, the latter significantly reduced the need for supportive care and systemic antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]