Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Section of Periodontology, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Private Practice, Bielefeld, Germany.
J Dent. 2020 Mar;94:103307. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103307. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
In this retrospective study, we compared tooth loss between patients receiving periodontal therapy (PT) in four German university centres, stratified according to periodontal treatment phase.
Overall, 896 patients (Kiel (KI) n = 391; Greifswald (GW) n = 282; Heidelberg (HD) n = 174; Frankfurt a.M. (F) n = 49) were examined initially (T0), after active periodontal therapy (APT, T1) and after supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, T2). Descriptive analyses and multivariable negative binomial regression models were performed.
Follow-up periods differed significantly between the centres, ranging between 6.7 ± 3.0 (GW) and 18.2 ± 5.5 (KI) years (p < 0.001). At T0, age, gender, smoking and diabetes showed notable regional distinctions (p < 0.001). However, the number of teeth per patient was similar (between 24.0 ± 4.6 (F) and 24.5 ± 4.1 (HD); p = 0.27). During PT, the number of extracted teeth differed significantly between centres, with greater differences during SPT (0.9 ± 1.8 (GW) to 2.3 ± 2.8 (KI), p < 0.001) compared to APT (0.4 ± 0.9 (F) to 1.0 ± 2.1 (KI), p = 0.02). Annual tooth loss during SPT remained low in all centres (between 0.10 ± 0.14 (F) to 0.15 ± 0.30 (HD), p < 0.001).
Within the limitation of the study, PT leads to a low risk of tooth loss in all university centres irrespective of patients' baseline characteristics.
Within the limitations of this retrospective investigation, long-term tooth retention seems to be feasible for most patients, as long as a systematic and structured treatment approach is applied.
在这项回顾性研究中，我们比较了在德国四个大学中心接受牙周治疗（PT）的患者的牙齿缺失情况，根据牙周治疗阶段进行分层。
共有 896 名患者（基尔（KI）n=391；格赖夫斯瓦尔德（GW）n=282；海德堡（HD）n=174；美因河畔法兰克福（F）n=49）在初始时（T0）、牙周治疗后（APT，T1）和支持性牙周治疗后（SPT，T2）接受了检查。进行了描述性分析和多变量负二项式回归模型分析。
各中心的随访时间差异显著，范围为 6.7±3.0（GW）至 18.2±5.5（KI）年（p<0.001）。在 T0，年龄、性别、吸烟和糖尿病存在明显的区域差异（p<0.001）。然而，每位患者的牙齿数相似（F 为 24.0±4.6，HD 为 24.5±4.1；p=0.27）。在 PT 期间，各中心之间拔牙的数量差异显著，SPT 期间差异更大（GW 为 0.9±1.8，KI 为 2.3±2.8；p<0.001），而 APT 期间差异较小（F 为 0.4±0.9，KI 为 1.0±2.1；p=0.02）。在所有中心，SPT 期间的年牙齿缺失率均较低（F 为 0.10±0.14，HD 为 0.15±0.30；p<0.001）。
在研究的限制范围内，无论患者的基线特征如何，PT 都会导致所有大学中心的牙齿缺失风险较低。
在这项回顾性研究的限制范围内，只要采用系统和结构化的治疗方法，长期保留牙齿对大多数患者来说似乎是可行的。
