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.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of a structured plaque control intervention on clinical and patient‐centred outcomes for patients with gingival manifestations of oral lichen planus.Materials and Methods: Eighty‐two patients were recruited into a 20‐week randomized controlled trial. The intervention was structured plaque control comprising powered tooth brushing and inter‐dental cleaning advice. Control subjects continued with their normal dental plaque control regimen. The primary outcome measure was the oral health impact profile (OHIP) with secondary outcomes of pain, plaque index, mucosal disease score and cost‐effectiveness.Results: Overall, the intervention patients showed statistically significant improvements in OHIP sum ordinal and OHIP dichotomous scores compared with control. There were improvements in the functional limitation, psychological discomfort and physical disability domains at 4‐ and 20‐weeks and in the psychological disability domain at 20‐weeks. The intervention was successful in reducing plaque compared to control (p < 0.001) and improvements were observed using the mucosal disease indices at the 4‐ and 20‐week follow‐ups (p < 0.001).Conclusion: A structured plaque control intervention was effective in improving the oral health‐related quality of life and clinically observed gingival lesions. This study provides evidence to include intensive plaque control within patients’ initial and on‐going management.

Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0–3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI. Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715

Objectives: To investigate impact of periodontal status on quality of life (QoL) in type-1 (T1D) and type-2 (T2D) diabetes patients pre- and post-periodontal treatment using the Well-being Questionnaire 12 (W-BQ12) and Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life-19 (ADDQoL-19). Methods: W-BQ12 and ADDQoL-19 were self-completed by 56 T1D and 77 T2D patients at baseline and by those with periodontitis 3 and 6-months after therapy. Results: At baseline, T1D patients had significantly higher general W-BQ12 [Median (IQR); 24.00 (20.25–27.75)] and positive well-being scores [8.00 (6.00–9.00)] (indicating better QoL) compared to T2D patients [22.00 (15.50–26.00) and 6.00 (3.50–9.00)], respectively (p < 0.05). Within both groups, general W-BQ12 scores did not differ significantly between patients with periodontal health, gingivitis, or periodontitis (p > 0.05). Significantly higher general W-BQ12 scores were observed in T1D patients at month 3 [28.00 (22.00–29.50)] compared to baseline [22.00 (17.00–24.50)] (p < 0.01), suggesting an initial improvement in QoL post-treatment. ADDQoL-19 identified that diabetes had greatest impact on the domain ‘freedom to eat’, with participants placing most importance on ‘family life’. No significant changes in ADDQoL-19 scores were seen post-treatment (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Diabetes had impacts upon aspects of life quality in both T1D and T2D patients, though any additional impact based on periodontal status was not observed when using W-BQ12 and ADDQoL-19.