BACKGROUND: Little work has been done on quality assurance of long-term maintenance of periodontal therapy MATERIALS/ METHODS: A quality assurance model was applied to 80 patients (50 females, 30 males) with an average age of 64.3 years (SD. 8.83, range 45-91) and with 21.6 (SD. 2.65, range 16-26) maintenance years. The main elements were patients' expectations, objectives and patient-based outcomes, human and financial costs and treatment deviations. For cost-effectiveness, this group was compared with a control group of 25 patients with an average of 9.96 years not complying with maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The patients' main expectations and reasons for seeking treatment were to save teeth and a desire for better oral health. The patients had a total tooth-year loss of 3.3%. 81.3% reported improved oral health. Total treatment discounted cost was €5842. The cost of buying an extra tooth year was €20.2. Patients reported anxiety of 4.6 (SD10.5, range 0-47) and discomfort of 11.8 (SD13.2 range 0-70) for the maintenance visits on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment deviations showed 3.8% extreme downhill patients, 6.3% with poor oral hygiene, 3.8% reported a worsening of their oral health, 3.8% had high anxiety whereas 5.0% experienced a high level of discomfort. CONCLUSION: It is possible to apply a number of elements of a quality assurance measure to a patient population of compliant maintenance patients in real time. The results obtained compare well with previous internal and external studies. This model should be useful to patients and practitioners as well as for larger population-based studies.
BACKGROUND: Little work has been done on quality assurance of long-term maintenance of periodontal therapy MATERIALS/ METHODS: A quality assurance model was applied to 80 patients (50 females, 30 males) with an average age of 64.3 years (SD. 8.83, range 45-91) and with 21.6 (SD. 2.65, range 16-26) maintenance years. The main elements were patients' expectations, objectives and patient-based outcomes, human and financial costs and treatment deviations. For cost-effectiveness, this group was compared with a control group of 25 patients with an average of 9.96 years not complying with maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The patients' main expectations and reasons for seeking treatment were to save teeth and a desire for better oral health. The patients had a total tooth-year loss of 3.3%. 81.3% reported improved oral health. Total treatment discounted cost was €5842. The cost of buying an extra tooth year was €20.2. Patients reported anxiety of 4.6 (SD10.5, range 0-47) and discomfort of 11.8 (SD13.2 range 0-70) for the maintenance visits on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Treatment deviations showed 3.8% extreme downhill patients, 6.3% with poor oral hygiene, 3.8% reported a worsening of their oral health, 3.8% had high anxiety whereas 5.0% experienced a high level of discomfort. CONCLUSION: It is possible to apply a number of elements of a quality assurance measure to a patient population of compliant maintenance patients in real time. The results obtained compare well with previous internal and external studies. This model should be useful to patients and practitioners as well as for larger population-based studies.