Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

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

Lookup NU author(s): Emeritus Professor Peter Heasman, Lynne Heasman, Professor Giles McCracken, Emeritus Professor Jimmy Steele CBE, Alex Sharp



© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2018. 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.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Ramsay CR, Clarkson JE, Duncan A, Lamont TJ, Heasman PA, Boyers D, Goulao B, Bonetti D, Bruce R, Gouick J, Heasman L, Lovelock-Hempleman LA, Macpherson LE, McCracken GI, McDonald AM, McLaren-Neil F, Mitchell FE, Norrie JDT, van der Pol M, Sim K, Steele JG, Sharp A, Watt G, Worthington HV, Young L

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Health Technology Assessment

Year: 2018

Volume: 22

Issue: 38

Pages: 1-143

Online publication date: 01/07/2018

Acceptance date: 02/04/2018

Date deposited: 17/08/2018

ISSN (print): 1366-5278

ISSN (electronic): 2046-4924

Publisher: NIHR Journals Library


DOI: 10.3310/hta22380


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication