BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM), but there are conflicting data regarding tooth loss following patient compliance. METHOD: Seventy-two periodontal patients (52 women, 20 men), 86% of whom had been diagnosed with chronic moderate to severe periodontitis, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical variables such as tooth loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index and probing depth were collected from patients after 10 years of PM. The periodontal status of regular compliers (RCs) and erratic compliers (ECs) were compared in a private practice. RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that clinical variables were not significant between RCs and ECs except for BOP (p = 0.038). During PM, 24 teeth (a mean of 1.5 teeth per participant) were lost in the RC group, and 80 teeth (a mean of 1.43 teeth per participant) were lost in the EC group. Molars were the most frequently lost teeth and canines the least. In general, those patients with less BOP lost fewer teeth (p = 0.002) and attended more recall visits (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present sample, RCs and ECs did not show significant differences in rates of tooth loss. However, a significant difference between RCs and ECs in regard to BOP was observed at the final examination (p = 0.038). There was also a strong relationship between BOP and recall visits: the patients with less BOP attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).
BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM), but there are conflicting data regarding tooth loss following patient compliance. METHOD: Seventy-two periodontal patients (52 women, 20 men), 86% of whom had been diagnosed with chronic moderate to severe periodontitis, were included in this retrospective study. Clinical variables such as tooth loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index and probing depth were collected from patients after 10 years of PM. The periodontal status of regular compliers (RCs) and erratic compliers (ECs) were compared in a private practice. RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that clinical variables were not significant between RCs and ECs except for BOP (p = 0.038). During PM, 24 teeth (a mean of 1.5 teeth per participant) were lost in the RC group, and 80 teeth (a mean of 1.43 teeth per participant) were lost in the EC group. Molars were the most frequently lost teeth and canines the least. In general, those patients with less BOP lost fewer teeth (p = 0.002) and attended more recall visits (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present sample, RCs and ECs did not show significant differences in rates of tooth loss. However, a significant difference between RCs and ECs in regard to BOP was observed at the final examination (p = 0.038). There was also a strong relationship between BOP and recall visits: the patients with less BOP attended more recall visits (p = 0.001).