PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Debora Matthews

Publications and source records attributed to Debora Matthews.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Conclusive support for mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy in the treatment of periodontal disease. How effective is mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy?

DATA SOURCES: Sources of studies were the Cochrane Oral Health Group List of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Medline, Embase, and Scisearch. No date or language restriction was imposed. Reference lists of located reviews were checked for additional references. STUDY SELECTION: Twelve reviews addressing the question were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A narrative appraisal of the reviews was conducted. RESULTS: A number of implications for clinical practice were identified. These are as follows:Initial therapy: In people who have periodontitis, mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy reduces inflammation and pocket depth and increases clinical attachment level. The magnitude of pocket depth reduction correlates with greater pocket depth before treatment. Nonsurgical mechanical debridement may cause loss of attachment in shallow pockets (</=3 mm). There is no evidence of any difference in efficacy between machine-driven (ultrasonic and sonic) and hand instruments in single-rooted teeth. Machine-driven instruments may be faster than hand instruments. Adjunctive therapies have been developed and investigated but, to date, no therapy exists as a stand alone replacement for mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy.Maintenance therapy: In periodontal maintenance patients, mechanical debridement reduces inflammation and disturbs the bacterial biofilm, which is thought critical to disease control including prevention of progression. The effect of mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy on pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment gain in maintenance patients is unclear; maintenance or stability of pocket probing depth and clinical attachment level, however, has been demonstrated and meets the goal of maintenance therapy. There is not clear evidence to form recommendations over time taken, thoroughness and frequency of mechanical debridement for periodontal maintenance care. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence in the form of systematic reviews - the highest level of evidence for evaluating a therapy - provides conclusive support for the beneficial effect and efficacy of mechanical nonsurgical pocket therapy in the treatment of periodontal diseases.

Comment↗

What is a clinical pathway?

Clinical pathways are patient care algorithms based on best evidence. They are intended to minimize variance in treatment and thus reduce cost, increase efficiency, and ultimately improve patient care outcomes. Clinical paths are more commonly used in the United Kingdom, and there is evidence that they are effective in the medical context. Some limitations that dentists may want to keep in mind regarding critical paths are that they may not be appropriate for all patient especially those with complex conditions); they present the potential for being misunderstood or misapplied; and practitioners often find them time-consuming, restrictive, and intrusive.

Algorithms↗

Putting your money where your mouth is: willingness to pay for dental gel.

OBJECTIVES: To measure preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for a novel anaesthetic (dental gel) versus existing anaesthetic options for periodontal maintenance visits. DESIGN: The study was conducted by developing and administering a survey, composed of a modified decision aid and a WTP instrument. The decision aid provided clinical information in layman's terms. Patients stated their anaesthetic preference; WTP elicited the hypothetical amount of money a subject would pay to have dental gel available for maintenance cleaning, should they require anaesthetic. PATIENTS: Periodontal recall patients (n = 97; 'recall') and participants from the general population (n = 196; 'general') from southwestern Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The overwhelming majority of participants chose dental gel over injectable local anaesthetic or no anaesthetic as their first anaesthetic preference (general: 81.0%; recall: 82.5%). The median WTP for dental gel was 20.00 Canadian dollars (dollars Can) per visit for the general population and dollars Can10.00 for the recall population (1999 values). The majority of participants were willing to pay an insurance premium for dental gel, even if they did not personally prefer dental gel (general: 72.4%; recall: 73.2%). The median monthly premium to have dental gel available for any plan beneficiary requiring scaling and root planing (SRP) during maintenance was dollars Can2.00 per month for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, an alternative to traditional injectable local anaesthetic (i.e. dental gel) was overwhelmingly preferred by both general population participants and recall patients for maintenance cleaning procedures. Most participants were willing to pay to have dental gel available, either for themselves or for others.

Administration, Topical↗