Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD)

a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Craig R Ramsay, Jan E Clarkson, Anne Duncan, Thomas J Lamont, Peter A Heasman, Dwayne Boyers, Beatriz Goulão, Debbie Bonetti, Rebecca Bruce, Jill Gouick, Lynne Heasman, Laura A Lovelock-Hempleman, Lorna E Macpherson, Giles I McCracken, Alison M McDonald, Fiona McLaren-Neil, Fiona E Mitchell, John Dt Norrie, Marjon van der Pol, Kirsty Sim & 5 others James G Steele, Alex Sharp, Graeme Watt, Helen V Worthington, Linda Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)
11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI).

OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI.

DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

SETTING: UK dental practices.

PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3.

INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs).

RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions.

LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA.

FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-144
Number of pages144
JournalHealth Technology Assessment
Volume22
Issue number38
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Dental Care
Oral Hygiene
Periodontal Diseases
Dentistry
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Biomedical Technology Assessment
Tooth
Economics
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Self Efficacy
Hemorrhage
Inflammation
Mouth Diseases
Pragmatic Clinical Trials
Industrial Oils
Costs and Cost Analysis
Periodontal Index

Keywords

  • Clinical Trial

Cite this

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD) : a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care. / Ramsay, Craig R; Clarkson, Jan E; Duncan, Anne; Lamont, Thomas J; Heasman, Peter A; Boyers, Dwayne; Goulão, Beatriz; Bonetti, Debbie; Bruce, Rebecca; Gouick, Jill; Heasman, Lynne; Lovelock-Hempleman, Laura A; Macpherson, Lorna E; McCracken, Giles I; McDonald, Alison M; McLaren-Neil, Fiona; Mitchell, Fiona E; Norrie, John Dt; van der Pol, Marjon; Sim, Kirsty; Steele, James G; Sharp, Alex; Watt, Graeme; Worthington, Helen V; Young, Linda.

In: Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 22, No. 38, 07.2018, p. 1-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ramsay, CR, Clarkson, JE, Duncan, A, Lamont, TJ, Heasman, PA, Boyers, D, Goulão, B, Bonetti, D, Bruce, R, Gouick, J, Heasman, L, Lovelock-Hempleman, LA, Macpherson, LE, McCracken, GI, McDonald, AM, McLaren-Neil, F, Mitchell, FE, Norrie, JD, van der Pol, M, Sim, K, Steele, JG, Sharp, A, Watt, G, Worthington, HV & Young, L 2018, 'Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care', Health Technology Assessment, vol. 22, no. 38, pp. 1-144. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22380
Ramsay, Craig R ; Clarkson, Jan E ; Duncan, Anne ; Lamont, Thomas J ; Heasman, Peter A ; Boyers, Dwayne ; Goulão, Beatriz ; Bonetti, Debbie ; Bruce, Rebecca ; Gouick, Jill ; Heasman, Lynne ; Lovelock-Hempleman, Laura A ; Macpherson, Lorna E ; McCracken, Giles I ; McDonald, Alison M ; McLaren-Neil, Fiona ; Mitchell, Fiona E ; Norrie, John Dt ; van der Pol, Marjon ; Sim, Kirsty ; Steele, James G ; Sharp, Alex ; Watt, Graeme ; Worthington, Helen V ; Young, Linda. / Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD) : a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care. In: Health Technology Assessment. 2018 ; Vol. 22, No. 38. pp. 1-144.
@article{3045c625e17144d7a17002d25cfbc93e,
title = "Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI).OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI.DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE).SETTING: UK dental practices.PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3.INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs).RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33{\%}, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87{\%}, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) -1.6{\%} to 3.3{\%}; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11{\%}, 95{\%} CI -2.3{\%} to 2.5{\%}; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5{\%}, 95{\%} CI -8.3{\%} to 3.3{\%}; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95{\%} CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95{\%} CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95{\%} CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95{\%} CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95{\%} CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions.LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups.CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA.FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715.FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.",
keywords = "Clinical Trial",
author = "Ramsay, {Craig R} and Clarkson, {Jan E} and Anne Duncan and Lamont, {Thomas J} and Heasman, {Peter A} and Dwayne Boyers and Beatriz Goul{\~a}o and Debbie Bonetti and Rebecca Bruce and Jill Gouick and Lynne Heasman and Lovelock-Hempleman, {Laura A} and Macpherson, {Lorna E} and McCracken, {Giles I} and McDonald, {Alison M} and Fiona McLaren-Neil and Mitchell, {Fiona E} and Norrie, {John Dt} and {van der Pol}, Marjon and Kirsty Sim and Steele, {James G} and Alex Sharp and Graeme Watt and Worthington, {Helen V} and Linda Young",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "10.3310/hta22380",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "1--144",
journal = "Health Technology Assessment",
issn = "1366-5278",
publisher = "National Co-ordinating Centre for HTA",
number = "38",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD)

T2 - a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

AU - Ramsay, Craig R

AU - Clarkson, Jan E

AU - Duncan, Anne

AU - Lamont, Thomas J

AU - Heasman, Peter A

AU - Boyers, Dwayne

AU - Goulão, Beatriz

AU - Bonetti, Debbie

AU - Bruce, Rebecca

AU - Gouick, Jill

AU - Heasman, Lynne

AU - Lovelock-Hempleman, Laura A

AU - Macpherson, Lorna E

AU - McCracken, Giles I

AU - McDonald, Alison M

AU - McLaren-Neil, Fiona

AU - Mitchell, Fiona E

AU - Norrie, John Dt

AU - van der Pol, Marjon

AU - Sim, Kirsty

AU - Steele, James G

AU - Sharp, Alex

AU - Watt, Graeme

AU - Worthington, Helen V

AU - Young, Linda

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI).OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI.DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE).SETTING: UK dental practices.PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3.INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs).RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions.LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups.CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA.FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715.FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

AB - BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI).OBJECTIVES: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI.DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE).SETTING: UK dental practices.PARTICIPANTS: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3.INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs).RESULTS: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions.LIMITATIONS: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups.CONCLUSIONS: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA.FUTURE WORK: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715.FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

KW - Clinical Trial

U2 - 10.3310/hta22380

DO - 10.3310/hta22380

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 1

EP - 144

JO - Health Technology Assessment

JF - Health Technology Assessment

SN - 1366-5278

IS - 38

ER -