4.6 Article

Compliance of cigarette smokers with scheduled visits for supportive periodontal therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 473-480

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12242

Keywords

supportive periodontal therapy; smoking; compliance; non-smoking; adherence; periodontal maintenance

Funding

  1. Swiss National Program to Stop Smoking, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To evaluate the compliance of cigarette smokers with scheduled visits for supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Materials and Methods Qualitative and quantitative analyses of compliance with scheduled SPT visits were performed using retrospective data from patients undergoing dental hygiene treatment at the Medi School of Dental Hygiene (MSDH), Bern, Switzerland 1985-2011. Results A total of 1336 patients were identified with 32.1% (n=429) being smokers, 23.1% (n=308) former smokers and 44.8% (n=599) non-smokers. Qualitatively, significantly less smokers returned for SPT than non-smokers or former smokers (p=0.0026), whereas 25.9% (n=346) never returned for SPT. Further quantitative analysis of patients returning twice or more (n=883) revealed that the overall mean %-compliance was 69.8% (SD +/- 22.04),whereas smokers complied with 67.0% (SD +/- 22.00), former smokers with 69.7% (SD +/- 22.03), and non-smokers with 71.7% (SD +/- 21.92) reaching statistical significance (p=0.0111). Confounder adjusted analysis, however, revealed that older age (p=0.0001), female gender (p=0.0058), longer SPT intervals (p<0.0001) and higher severity of periodontal disease (p<0.0001) had a much greater impact on %-compliance than smoking (p=0.7636). Conclusions This study suggests that qualitatively, smokers return less likely for SPT than non-smokers or former smokers while quantitatively, a lower mean %-compliance of smokers attending scheduled SPT visits may be attributed to confounders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available