Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish: a randomised controlled trial

Clare Jones, Tatiana MacFarlane, Keith M Milsom, Philip Ratcliffe, Annette Wyllie, Martin Tickle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.

METHODS: A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.

RESULTS: 369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3% (6-month group), 47.0% (12-month group) and 30.0% (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be "every 6 months" or more frequently: 77.9% (6-month group), 64.6% (12-month group), 71.7% (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of "once a year" or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.36, 6.13).

CONCLUSIONS: The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Article number50
JournalBMC Oral Health
Volume13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Industrial Oils
Randomized Controlled Trials
Oral Health
Mouth
Tooth
Tooth Bleaching
Patient Preference
Gingiva
Periodontal Diseases
Therapeutics
Esthetics

Keywords

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Chi-Square Distribution
  • Community-Based Participatory Research
  • Dental Prophylaxis
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Office Visits
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Periodontal Index
  • Questionnaires
  • Statistics, Nonparametric
  • Time Factors
  • Young Adult
  • Practice-Based RCT
  • Routine Scale and Polish
  • Patient-Reported Outcomes

Cite this

Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish : a randomised controlled trial. / Jones, Clare; MacFarlane, Tatiana; Milsom, Keith M; Ratcliffe, Philip; Wyllie, Annette; Tickle, Martin.

In: BMC Oral Health, Vol. 13, 50, 03.10.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jones, Clare ; MacFarlane, Tatiana ; Milsom, Keith M ; Ratcliffe, Philip ; Wyllie, Annette ; Tickle, Martin. / Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish : a randomised controlled trial. In: BMC Oral Health. 2013 ; Vol. 13.
@article{24f0f24fbbf94cee8296465e6d93748e,
title = "Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish: a randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.METHODS: A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.RESULTS: 369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3{\%} (6-month group), 47.0{\%} (12-month group) and 30.0{\%} (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be {"}every 6 months{"} or more frequently: 77.9{\%} (6-month group), 64.6{\%} (12-month group), 71.7{\%} (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of {"}once a year{"} or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95{\%} CI 1.36, 6.13).CONCLUSIONS: The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.",
keywords = "Adolescent, Adult, Chi-Square Distribution, Community-Based Participatory Research, Dental Prophylaxis, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Patient Satisfaction, Periodontal Index, Questionnaires, Statistics, Nonparametric, Time Factors, Young Adult, Practice-Based RCT, Routine Scale and Polish, Patient-Reported Outcomes",
author = "Clare Jones and Tatiana MacFarlane and Milsom, {Keith M} and Philip Ratcliffe and Annette Wyllie and Martin Tickle",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6831-13-50",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "BMC Oral Health",
issn = "1472-6831",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient perceptions regarding benefits of single visit scale and polish

T2 - a randomised controlled trial

AU - Jones, Clare

AU - MacFarlane, Tatiana

AU - Milsom, Keith M

AU - Ratcliffe, Philip

AU - Wyllie, Annette

AU - Tickle, Martin

PY - 2013/10/3

Y1 - 2013/10/3

N2 - BACKGROUND: Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.METHODS: A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.RESULTS: 369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3% (6-month group), 47.0% (12-month group) and 30.0% (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be "every 6 months" or more frequently: 77.9% (6-month group), 64.6% (12-month group), 71.7% (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of "once a year" or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.36, 6.13).CONCLUSIONS: The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.

AB - BACKGROUND: Single visit scale and polish is frequently carried out in dental practices however there is little evidence to support (or refute) its clinical effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to compare patient-reported outcomes between groups receiving a scale and polish at 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. Outcomes recorded included participants' subjective assessment of their oral cleanliness; the perceived importance of scale and polish for oral health and aesthetics; and frequency at which this treatment is required.METHODS: A practice-based randomised control trial was undertaken, with a 24-month follow-up period. Participants were healthy adults with no significant periodontal disease (BPE codes <3) randomly allocated to three groups to receive scale and polish at 6-, 12-, or 24-month intervals. Patient-reported outcomes were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Oral cleanliness was reported using a 5-point scale and recorded by examiners blinded to trial group allocation. A self-completed questionnaire enabled participants to report perceived importance of scale and polish (5-point scale), and required frequency of treatment (6-point scale). The main hypothesis was that participants receiving 6-monthly scale and polish would report higher levels of oral cleanliness compared to participants receiving scale and polish at 12- and 24-month intervals.RESULTS: 369 participants were randomised: 125 to the 6-month group; 122 to the 12-month group; and 122 to the 24-month group. Complete data set analysis was carried out to include 107 (6-month group), 100 (12-month group) and 100 (24-month group) participants. Multiple imputation analyses were conducted where follow-up data was missing. The difference in the proportions of participants reporting a 'high' level of oral cleanliness at follow-up was significant (Chi-squared P = 0.003): 52.3% (6-month group), 47.0% (12-month group) and 30.0% (24-month group). Scale and polish was thought to be important by the majority in each group for keeping mouths clean and gums healthy, whitening teeth, and preventing bad breath and tooth decay; there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up. Most participants at follow-up thought that the frequency of scale and polish should be "every 6 months" or more frequently: 77.9% (6-month group), 64.6% (12-month group), 71.7% (24-month group); differences between groups were not statistically significant (Chi squared P = 0.126). The results suggest that participants in the 24-month trial group were more likely to choose a scale and polish interval of "once a year" or less frequently (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.36, 6.13).CONCLUSIONS: The majority of healthy adults regarded 6-monthly single-visit scale and polish as being beneficial for their oral health. Receiving the treatment at different frequencies did not alter this belief; and those with the longest interval between scale and polish provision perceived that their mouth was less clean. In the absence of a strong evidence base to support (or refute) the effectiveness of single-visit scale and polish, the beliefs and preferences of patients regarding scale and polish may be influential drivers for maintaining provision of this treatment.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Chi-Square Distribution

KW - Community-Based Participatory Research

KW - Dental Prophylaxis

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Humans

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Office Visits

KW - Patient Satisfaction

KW - Periodontal Index

KW - Questionnaires

KW - Statistics, Nonparametric

KW - Time Factors

KW - Young Adult

KW - Practice-Based RCT

KW - Routine Scale and Polish

KW - Patient-Reported Outcomes

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6831-13-50

DO - 10.1186/1472-6831-13-50

M3 - Article

C2 - 24090395

VL - 13

JO - BMC Oral Health

JF - BMC Oral Health

SN - 1472-6831

M1 - 50

ER -