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 SimJames G Steele, Alex Sharp, Graeme Watt, Helen V Worthington, Linda Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)
94 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)1-176
Number of pages176
JournalHealth Technology Assessment
Volume22
Issue number38
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2018

Bibliographical note

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mark Forrest and the programming team at CHaRT; Cynthia Fraser, our information specialist, for assistance with referencing; Moira Swan, who was the dental research nurse and part of the OA team in Newcastle upon Tyne; Louise Campbell for secretarial support and data management; our original statistician in the group, Andy Elders; senior IT manager Gladys Macpherson; senior trial administrator at the TCOD Marilyn Laird; Luke Vale for his involvement with the design of the health economic analysis at the inception of the trial; Maria Dimitrova, who assisted the health economists in the collection of unit costs; staff of the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, who assisted with screening eligible patients at dental practices; staff of the North East Commissioning Support Unit who assisted with research payments to dental practices in the north-east; members of the TMC and Periodontal Advisory Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; the independent members of the TSC and DMC; and the staff at recruitment sites who facilitated recruitment, treatment and follow-up of trial participants.
The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Keywords

  • Clinical Trial

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this