Abstract
Objective. To analyse how general dental practitioners (GDPs) and dental hygienists judge and plan to treat patients with different periodontal conditions. Materials and methods. Seventy-seven GDPs and 50 dental hygienists in a Swedish county, Halland, participated in a questionnaire study. The response rate was 94%. The questionnaire consisted of four simulated patient cases and an attached answer sheet. The patient cases had different periodontal status, ranging from healthy to moderate bone loss with general inflammation. The clinicians judged the periodontal status as healthy or diseased. If judged as diseased the clinicians suggested a diagnosis, selected treatment options and estimated the number of treatment sessions for each patient case. The clinicians were compared to each other regarding their judgement, as healthy or diseased, diagnostics and treatment. Results. Three out of four patients were judged both as healthy and diseased by different clinicians. If judged as diseased the patients were diagnosed as having gingivitis or periodontitis. Regardless of the clinicians' former judgement and diagnostics there were no differences (p > 0.05) in the selected treatment options but there was a difference (p < 0.05) in the suggested number of treatment sessions. Conclusions. Clinicians' judgement of the same periodontal condition, as healthy or diseased, varies, which partly results in different treatment decisions considering the number of treatment sessions. The suggested number of treatment sessions varied also between clinicians even if they judged and diagnosed the condition likewise. The willingness to treat and suggested treatment options were not influenced by the variation in judgement and diagnostics.
Acknowledgements
This study has been supported by the Swedish Dental Society. We thank the respondents and Gunilla Swanholm, chief supervisor of the public dental service in Halland, for contributing to the realization of the study, and Per-Erik Isberg, BSc, for statistical advice.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.