Caries experience after periodontal treatment in aggressive and chronic periodontitis: Results of a 10-year follow-up

Authors

  • Amelie Meyer-Bäumer Section of Periodontology, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Peter Eickholz Department of Periodontology, Center of Dental, Oral, and Maxillofacial Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Peter Reitmeir Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany
  • Hans Jörg Staehle Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Cornelia Frese Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Theresa Wohlrab Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Bernadette Pretzl Section of Periodontology, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.750012

Keywords:

aggressive periodontitis, DMF-T, DMF-S, periodontal disease, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT)

Abstract

Objective. To compare the increase of DMF-T and DMF-S in patients with aggressive periodontitis (AgP) and chronic periodontitis (ChP) after active periodontal therapy. Materials and methods. One hundred and thirty-six periodontally treated patients were re-examined after 10 years. Dental and periodontal status was assessed and patients' charts were screened for diagnosis, compliance to supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) and DMF-T/-S at baseline and re-examination. δDMF-T/-S was calculated and multi-level regression analyses were performed to identify factors contributing to increase of DMF-T/-S. Results. Thirty patients with AgP, 37 with moderate ChP and 69 with severe ChP could be included. δDMF-T between first visit and re-examination was 2.07 (SD = 2.51, range = 0–14 teeth), mean δDMF-S = 14.66 (SD = 14.54, range = 0–83 surfaces). Patients with AgP showed a similar increase in DMF-T/-S to those with ChP. Regression analysis identified compliance as the only factor significantly accounting for preventing an increase of DMF-S (p = 0.017). No factor had a significant impact on DMF-T. Conclusions. DMF-T and DMF-S developed similarly in periodontally-treated patients with AgP and ChP during a follow-up of 10 years. SPT showed a positive influence on avoiding decline in DMF-S in periodontally compromised patients. No significant impact was detected for all other studied factors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-09-01