Daniele Cardaropoli1, Lorena Gaveglio. 1. Institute for Professional Education in Dentistry, Scientific Director PROED, Torino, Italy. dacardar@tin.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the compliance to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in a population of adult periodontal patients, and to determine the impact of clinical procedures performed such as the type of active periodontal therapy and the insertion of dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients were evaluated. The subjects were divided into two groups, according to the active periodontal procedure (surgical/non-surgical), and were also classified as having or not-having osseointegrated implants. The number of visits for SPT after the end of active therapy was evaluated, and subjects were classified as compliant or non-compliant. RESULTS: At the end of a 5-year evaluation, 77.1% of patients completely complied with SPT while 22.9% of patients had insufficient compliance degree. No significant difference was found in compliance between subjects that had surgical or non-surgical periodontal treatment. However, patients that had the insertion of one or more dental implant registered a significant higher degree of compliance than patients that had no fixtures insertion. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that it is possible to have excellent degree of patients' compliance for SPT. The performance of periodontal surgical therapy itself is not a reason able to motivate the patients to maintenance care, while the insertion of osseointegrated implants seems to be a reliable reason to positively affect the compliance with SPT.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the compliance to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in a population of adult periodontal patients, and to determine the impact of clinical procedures performed such as the type of active periodontal therapy and the insertion of dental implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients were evaluated. The subjects were divided into two groups, according to the active periodontal procedure (surgical/non-surgical), and were also classified as having or not-having osseointegrated implants. The number of visits for SPT after the end of active therapy was evaluated, and subjects were classified as compliant or non-compliant. RESULTS: At the end of a 5-year evaluation, 77.1% of patients completely complied with SPT while 22.9% of patients had insufficient compliance degree. No significant difference was found in compliance between subjects that had surgical or non-surgical periodontal treatment. However, patients that had the insertion of one or more dental implant registered a significant higher degree of compliance than patients that had no fixtures insertion. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that it is possible to have excellent degree of patients' compliance for SPT. The performance of periodontal surgical therapy itself is not a reason able to motivate the patients to maintenance care, while the insertion of osseointegrated implants seems to be a reliable reason to positively affect the compliance with SPT.