Factors influencing the diagnosis and treatment of periodontal disease by dental practitioners in Victoria

The oral microbiota and periodontal health in orthodontic patients

The oral microbiota develops within the first 2 years of childhood and becomes distinct from the parents by 4 years-of-age. The oral microbiota plays an important role in the overall health/symbiosis of the individual. Deviations from the state of symbiosis leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of pathogenicity. Deviations can occur not only from daily life activities but also from orthodontic interventions. Orthodontic appliances are formed from a variety of biomaterials. Once inserted, they serve as a breeding ground for microbial attachment, not only from new surface areas and crevices but also from material physicochemical interactions different than in the symbiotic state. Individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment show, compared with untreated people, qualitative and quantitative differences in activity within the oral microbiota, induced by increased retention of supra- and subgingival microbial plaque throughout the treatment period. These changes are at the root of the main undesirable effects, such as gingivitis, white spot lesions (WSL), and more severe caries lesions. Notably, the oral microbiota profile in the first weeks of orthodontic intervention might be a valuable indicator to predict and identify higher-risk individuals with respect to periodontal health and caries risk within an otherwise healthy population. Antimicrobial coatings have been used to dissuade microbes from adhering to the biomaterial; however, they disrupt the host microbiota, and several bacterial strains have become resistant. Smart biomaterials that can reduce the antimicrobial load preventing microbial adhesion to orthodontic appliances have shown promising results, but their complexity has kept many solutions from reaching the clinic. 3D printing technology provides opportunities for complex chemical syntheses to be performed uniformly, reducing the cost of producing smart biomaterials giving hope that they may reach the clinic in the near future. The purpose of this review is to emphasize the importance of the oral microbiota during orthodontic therapy and to use innovative technologies to better maintain its healthy balance during surgical procedures.

Characteristics of dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

OBJECTIVES

Our aims are to describe the characteristics of dentists, members of the US National Dental practice-based research network (PBRN) in the United States, and determine how often these dentists provide specific dental procedures.

METHODS

Dentists completed a questionnaire when they enrolled in the Network about their demographic and training characteristics and characteristics of their practices and patients. Dentists also reported the frequency of providing specific dental procedures. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 dentists in active clinical practice, 34% identified as females, 70% as white, and 73% as general dentists. Most dentists practiced in large metropolitan areas (87%) and in solo or small practices (72%). On average, they reported about one-half of their patients were children or older adults, a third were from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, and one-quarter were covered by public insurance. Most dentists routinely performed restorations and fixed prosthetics (78%), extractions (59%), removable (44%) and implant (40%) prosthetics, and endodontics on incisor and premolar teeth (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists participating in the National Dental PBRN have much in common with dentists at large. The network has a broad representation of dentists, practice types, patient populations, and treatments offered, including diversity regarding race/ethnicity, gender, insurance, and geography of its practitioners and patients.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Characteristics of National Dental PBRN dentists suggest that a broad range of dentists is interested in participating in national-level research studies, thereby enabling an array of clinical study settings and topics that can optimize the generalizability of study findings.

Investigating periodontal diagnosis and treatment at one dental school

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patients at one dental education institution received appropriate care based on their periodontal diagnosis in a timely manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study used a retrospective design to evaluate data from July 2018 to February 2020. The patient records were screened to determine whether patients received a periodontal diagnosis, whether the diagnosis followed the 2018 AAP Classification Guidelines, and if appropriate preventive and therapeutic procedures were completed in a timely manner. In addition, the type or year of dental student providing the procedure was also recorded. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a Chi-squared test.

RESULTS

A total of 612 charts were generated for review and 157 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Results revealed that more than half (56.7%) of the patient records did not demonstrate a periodontal diagnosis and another 10.8% did not follow current AAP Classification Guidelines. Most patients (n = 125, 79.6%) had a comprehensive periodontal assessment performed, while 32 (20.4%) had no comprehensive periodontal charting information recorded. Further, of the 157 records reviewed, 96 (61.1%) had no periodontal treatment specified. A statistically significant difference with a modest association was found between type of dental student and year based on periodontal diagnosis (Fisher's exact test value = 20.72, p = .001, Cramer's V = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

Documentation of key clinical information, diagnostic conclusions, and treatment rendered requires curriculum review. Further studies are warranted to determine whether similar findings exist among other dental school education programs.

Dental Students’ Knowledge, Confidence, Ability, and Self-Reported Difficulties in Periodontal Education: A Mixed Method Pilot Study

Evidence on periodontal education areas in which students have difficulties and their factors are limited. In this study, third- and fourth-year dental students’ knowledge was assessed as well as their confidence and ability in five periodontal educational areas using a mixed-method approach. A survey was used to collect data related to history-taking, medical examination, diagnosis, treatment planning, and follow-up. Student answers were compared to the consensual answers of an expert panel using the cosine-similarity index (CSI). Descriptive statistics assessed confidence and ability for diagnosis. Semi-structured individual interviews were used to collect data on reported reasons for difficulties in periodontal education. A content analysis was employed to analyze the interview data. Eighteen third- and fourth-year dental students completed the survey and eleven were interviewed. Students’ knowledge was adequate regarding diagnosis and treatment planning. Third-year students’ median CSI were 0.93 and 0.89, respectively. Fourth-year students’ median CSI were 0.9 and 0.93, respectively. Students felt confident in history-taking and examination but lacked confidence and ability in diagnosis and treatment planning. Reported reasons for difficulties in periodontal education were linked to both preclinical and clinical pedagogical issues. Further improvements in preclinical and clinical periodontal education are needed to address students’ lack of knowledge, confidence, and skills in key periodontal areas.

Periodontal Care and Treatment Provision by General Dentists in France

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Periodontal referral patterns in Norway: 2003 versus 2018

Objectives

Changes in periodontal referral patterns over time have been reported from the United States and Australia. To date, comparable studies have not been published from Europe. The objectives of the present study were to examine changes in periodontal referral patterns in Norway in 2003 versus 2018 and to compare these with trends observed in the United States and Australia using universal criteria for grading of periodontal severity.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis of 369 charts from four Norwegian periodontics clinics was completed. Data on year of referral, gender, age, tobacco smoking, periodontal status and missing teeth at initial examination, teeth planned for extraction, and periodontal case type were collected using a survey format; case type I, II, III, and IV representing increasing severity of periodontitis, case type V representing referral for other periodontal conditions (peri‐implantitis, refractory periodontitis, etc.). Chi‐square, t‐tests, and negative binomial regression were used for the statistical analysis.

Results

Compared with 2003, the 2018 data showed an increase in mean age at referral (p < 0.05), overall distribution of case type III and V (p = 0.047), and number of missing teeth (p = 0.001). Further, a decrease in prevalence of smokers (p < 0.05), but no change in number of teeth planned for extraction (p = 0.104), were observed.

Conclusions

During a period of 15 years, changes in periodontal referral patterns in Norway are similar to those in the United States and Australia. The adoption of a guideline‐based referral practice might be beneficial for both the dental profession and patients.

Periodontal furcation lesions: A survey of diagnosis and management by general dental practitioners

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore general dental practitioners' (GDPs) attitude to periodontal furcation involvement (FI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey focused on diagnosis and management of periodontal FI was circulated to GDPs in seven different countries.

RESULTS

A total of 400 responses were collected. Nearly a fifth of participants reported rarely or never taking 6-point pocket charts; 65.8% of participants had access to a Nabers probe in their practice. When shown clinical pictures and radiographs of FI-involved molars, the majority of participants correctly diagnosed it. Although 47.1% of participants were very/extremely confident in detecting FI, only 8.9% felt very/extremely confident at treating it. Differences in responses were detected according to country and year of qualification, with a trend towards less interest in periodontal diagnosis and treatment in younger generations. Lack of knowledge of management/referral pathways (reported by 22.8%) and lack of correct equipment were considered the biggest barriers to FI management. Most participants (80.9%) were interested in learning more about FI, ideally face to face followed by online tutorials.

CONCLUSIONS

Plans should be put in place to improve general dentists' knowledge and ability to manage FI, as this can have a significant impact on public health.

Discrepancies in periodontitis classification among dental practitioners with different educational backgrounds

Background

The 2018 classification of periodontal disease characterizes the disease with a multidimensional staging and grading system. The purpose of this multicenter study was to examine variations in periodontitis classification among dental practitioners with different postgraduate educational backgrounds at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry and the Loma Linda University School of Dentistry using the 2018 classification.

Methods

This cross-sectional observational study included two cohorts: dental practitioners with periodontal backgrounds (n₁ = 31) and those with other educational backgrounds (n₂ = 33). The survey instrument contained three periodontitis cases presented with the guideline of the 2018 classification and a questionnaire including closed and open-ended questions. The participants were asked to review each case and to fill out the questionnaire independently. Fisher’s exact test was conducted to examine the differences in responses between the two cohorts. Polychoric correlations were calculated to examine the relation between the level of familiarity with the 2018 classification and the accuracy of the classification.

Results

The distribution of item responses was significantly different between the two cohorts regarding only one item, grading for Case 1 (p = 0.01). No significant differences in accuracy between the two cohorts were observed except for two items, grading in Case 1 (p = 0.03) and staging in Case 3 (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in risk factor identification for each case among the two cohorts (p = 1.00, Case 1; p = 0.22, Case 2). Staging in Case 3

(\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\widehat{\rho }$$\end{document}ρ^ = 0.52) and risk factor identification in Case 2 (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\widehat{\rho }$$\end{document}ρ^= 0.32) were significantly correlated with familiarity with the 2018 classification.

Conclusion

A fair level of agreement in periodontitis classification was observed among dental practitioners with different educational backgrounds when the 2018 classification was used. The periodontal cohort showed better agreement levels and partially better accuracy. Risk factor identification for periodontal disease was difficult regardless of the educational background.

Periodontal diagnosis, treatment, and referral patterns of general dental practitioners

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnosis, treatment, and referral patterns of periodontal patients by general dental practitioners (GDP).

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to registered GDP with publicly-listed postal addresses in Tasmania, Australia. Information was collected on demographics, training and professional development, examination, diagnosis and referral patterns, and periodontal treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven (44.5%) questionnaires were completed. Over 85% always or usually screened for periodontal disease. On average, 0 to ≤7 patients were diagnosed with periodontal disease. GDP were always or usually confident in treating gingivitis (100%), mild (98.7%) and moderate periodontitis (73.7%), and rarely or never confident in treating severe (81.6%) and aggressive periodontitis (86.8%). Over 38% frequently referred to periodontists, 35.5% sometimes, 21.1% rarely, and 5.3% never. Clinical factors associated with referral were periodontal pocketing of ≥6 mm, tooth mobility, no improvement following treatment, and a complex medical history.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GDP performed periodontal screening and diagnosis. They were confident in treating gingivitis and mild-to-moderate periodontitis. Referral to a periodontist was associated with disease severity, tooth mobility, a complex medical history, or unsuccessful treatment.

Frequency of Porphyromonas gingivalis fimA in smokers and nonsmokers after periodontal therapy

Porphyromonas gingivalis is one of the most important Gram-negative anaerobe bacteria involved in the pathogenesis of periodontitis. P. gingivalis has an arsenal of specialized virulence factors that contribute to its pathogenicity. Among them, fimbriae play a role in the initial attachment and organization of biofilms. Different genotypes of fimA have been related to length of fimbriae and pathogenicity of the bacterium.

Non-clinical factors associated with referral to periodontal specialists

BACKGROUND

There is a limited body of literature exploring referral relationships between general dental practitioners and periodontists. Clinical and non-clinical factors associated with the referral process are rarely considered however a better understanding of these will improve the general dentist practitioner and periodontal specialist relationship and benefit patient management. This study investigated which non-clinical factors have an association with the referral of patients by general dental practitioners to periodontists in Tasmania, Australia.

METHODS

A questionnaire was emailed to registered general dental practitioners in Tasmania, Australia and information collected on demographics, referral patterns, and potential factors which may influence referral.

RESULTS

Response rate was 44.5%. Non-clinical factors that influenced referral were previous treatment by a periodontist (70.8%), a complex medical history (56.8%), the patient's reluctance to undergo periodontal treatment, medico-legal reasons, patient awareness of periodontal disease (47.3%), and lack of training (43.2%). Patients frequently declined periodontal referral due to cost (66.2%), oral health not being a priority (55.4%), or inconvenience (46.6%). The most important periodontist qualities were their reputation (84.0%), patient feedback (81.3%), ease of communication (72.0%), report quality (68.0%), and location (62.7%).

CONCLUSION

Non-clinical factors, such as practice type-, general dental practitioner-, patient-, periodontist-related factors are associated with referral by general dental practitioners to periodontists for periodontal management.

Factors affecting periodontal disease referral and the adherence to guidelines among general dentists

BACKGROUND

Current research highlights a need to investigate the factors affecting periodontal disease referral. Limited literature exists on periodontal disease referral in Australia and no comparison to the periodontal disease referral guidelines exists.

OBJECTIVE

This study analyses the factors affecting periodontal disease referral and the adherence to guidelines in general dentists in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Fifty-seven general dentists who are members of the Australian Dental Association (Queensland) undertook an online survey.

RESULTS

The disease factor regarded as most important (90% of respondents) was unresolved inflammation upon re-evaluation. The non-disease factor regarded as most important (79% of respondents) was the operator's level of training. There is low awareness of the guidelines (36.7%) yet a reasonable adherence to them (78.3%). Of those aware of the guidelines, there was a statistically significant poorer adherence to the guidelines compared to those unaware (P = 0.036), while there is no significant difference in the adherence to guidelines between those who have and those who have not attended continuing professional development (CPD) courses (P = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to current guidelines is not significantly impacted by the level of awareness of the guidelines or CPD attendance. The results from this study suggest a need to refine the current guidelines to better inform decisions about periodontal disease referrals.

Differential Diagnosis between Chronic versus Aggressive Periodontitis and Staging of Aggressive Periodontitis: A Cross-sectional Study

Background

Differentiating between chronic periodontitis (CP) and aggressive periodontitis (AgP) is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the variations in diagnosis between CP versus AgP and the staging of AgP based on the disease-staging index for AgP among periodontists, specialists in oral medicine, and general dental practitioners (GDPs).

Materials and Methods

Fifteen cases diagnosed as either CP or AgP were included in a "case document" and sent electronically to 75 respondents. Case document included a detailed history with periodontal charting, clinical features, images, and radiographs for all the cases. Diagnosis and staging for the case (if diagnosed as AgP) were requested. A reordered case document (cases in a different sequence) was again sent to respondents after a gap of 1 month.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics including frequency and percentage were calculated. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to analyze the data collected.

Results

For the "case document," 10.17% of the responses were different from those of the authors for diagnosis, whereas 4.48% of the responses were different from those of the authors for the staging of AgP. The agreement in the overall responses was in the range of 0.69-0.84, which was considered good. Comparison of the responses for diagnosis showed statistically significant (P = 0.009) difference between specialists in oral medicine and GDPs.

Conclusions

Variations exist among respondents regarding the diagnosis of CP versus AgP. Staging of AgP based on the listed criteria showed low variations.

Non-Clinical Factors Associated With Referrals to Periodontal Specialists: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive understanding of the referral process and factors associated with it will assist general dentist (GD)-periodontist relationships and benefit patient care and services. Non-clinical factors (NCFs) influence clinical decision making but are rarely considered. The objective of this review is to identify NCFs found to be associated with referrals to periodontal specialists.

METHODS

A systematic review of English-language literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An electronic search was carried out using the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Sources, and PubMed. Search terms used included: 1) refer; 2) referral; 3) periodontal; and 4) periodontist. Potentially relevant publications were analyzed in detail using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected papers were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and data extracted were thematically synthesized.

RESULTS

Ten studies that examined NCFs fulfilled inclusion criteria. Four NCF themes identified were practice-, GD-, patient-, and periodontist-related factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited literature is available on NCFs associated with referrals to periodontal specialists. Within the limits of this systematic review, NCFs affecting the referral process are practice-, GD-, patient-, and periodontist-related factors. These vary among different GD populations studied. Factors that could be targeted to improve referral processes include geographic location, undergraduate training, and continuing professional development.

Periodontal diagnosis in private dental practice: a case-based survey

BACKGROUND

Despite the prevalence of periodontitis in Australia, there are few reports regarding periodontal diagnosis and therapies in the general dental practice setting. This study aimed to assess the degree of diagnostic accuracy in periodontal cases of Victorian general dental practitioners.

METHODS

Following ethics approval, dentists were invited to complete a scenario-based questionnaire on the Australian Dental Association Victorian Branch (ADAVB) website. Five text-based clinical scenarios (from a total of 10) were randomly presented, representing patients with a range of disease levels from periodontal health/gingivitis to severe periodontitis, and respondents were asked what examinations they would usually perform. Based upon the presented results of periodontal and radiographic examinations, a periodontal diagnosis was requested.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five dentists attempted the survey. Most were in group practice and based in Melbourne; 22.5% of respondents worked in a practice employing a hygienist. The clinical parameters most commonly measured to diagnose periodontal disease were pocket depth and mobility. The majority of respondents diagnosed health, gingivitis and mild periodontitis correctly compared to American Academy of Periodontology guidelines. However, moderate periodontitis tended to be diagnosed as severe.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists in Victoria used appropriate clinical parameters when assessing periodontal disease and were generally accurate in their diagnoses. There is a need for consensus regarding diagnostic definitions.

Provision of specific dental procedures by general dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network: questionnaire findings

Background

Objectives were to: (1) determine whether and how often general dentists (GDs) provide specific dental procedures; and (2) test the hypothesis that provision is associated with key dentist, practice, and patient characteristics.

Methods

GDs (n = 2,367) in the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed an Enrollment Questionnaire that included: (1) dentist; (2) practice; and (3) patient characteristics, and how commonly they provide each of 10 dental procedures. We determined how commonly procedures were provided and tested the hypothesis that provision was substantively related to the three sets of characteristics.

Results

Two procedure categories were classified as “uncommon” (orthodontics, periodontal surgery), three were “common” (molar endodontics; implants; non-surgical periodontics), and five were “very common” (restorative; esthetic procedures; extractions; removable prosthetics; non-molar endodontics). Dentist, practice, and patient characteristics were substantively related to procedure provision; several characteristics seemed to have pervasive effects, such as dentist gender, training after dental school, full-time/part-time status, private practice vs. institutional practice, presence of a specialist in the same practice, and insurance status of patients.

Conclusions

As a group, GDs provide a comprehensive range of procedures. However, provision by individual dentists is substantively related to certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics. A large number and broad range of factors seem to influence which procedures GDs provide. This may have implications for how GDs respond to the ever-changing landscape of dental care utilization, patient population demography, scope of practice, delivery models and GDs’ evolving role in primary care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6831-15-11) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nigerian dentists' knowledge of aggressive periodontitis

Objective:

To assess the general knowledge of Nigerian dentists on aggressive periodontitis (AgP) and specific knowledge of distinguishing between the clinical features of localized aggressive periodontitis (LAP) and generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP).

Materials and Methods:

A cross-sectional, non-random convenience survey was done on 200 dentists, in three geopolitical zones of Nigeria, using pre-tested, closed question– type questionnaires. Eventually, only 133 questionnaires were analyzed. Relationships between six outcome variables namely clinical features of LAP, clinical features of GAP, LAP oral hygiene, GAP oral hygiene, laser therapy option and type of laser therapy, and the explanatory variables of gender and experience were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 33.8% of the dentists had poor general knowledge, 16.5% had fair knowledge, 31.9% had good knowledge, while 10.5% had excellent knowledge. Gender- and experience-related differences were found, but they were not statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Both the general and specific knowledge of aggressive periodontitis among Nigerian dentists is less than expected and needs improvement through targeted, continuing dental education.

Low levels of caries in aggressive periodontitis: A literature review

This article is a traditional literature review on caries levels in aggressive periodontitis. Aggressive periodontitis generally affects systemically healthy individuals aged <30 years (older individuals can also be affected) and is characterized by a young age of onset, rapid rate of disease progression, and familial aggregation of cases. Dental caries is caused by the dissolution of enamel by acid-producing bacteria present in the plaque biofilm, especially when the biofilm reaches critical mass due to improper oral hygiene. The association between caries level and aggressive periodontitis has long been debated. Initial research indicated that caries levels were high in patients with aggressive periodontitis, but high-quality studies have consistently shown that caries and aggressive periodontitis are inversely related. A recent in vitro study showed that Streptococcus mutans was killed more readily in the saliva of patients with aggressive periodontitis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans positivity than in patients with A. actinomycetemcomitans negativity. Other mechanisms possibly explaining the inverse relationship between caries and aggressive periodontitis in cases of Down's syndrome are also discussed in this literature review. The usefulness of caries level in the diagnosis of aggressive periodontitis in developing countries such as India, where the disease is diagnosed primarily on the basis of clinical and radiographic features and familial history is also discussed.

The periodontal examination profile of general dentists in Nova Scotia, Canada

BACKGROUND

In this cross-sectional study we investigate the extent to which general dentists in Nova Scotia carry out periodontal examinations of their patients. In addition, factors that significantly influence performing a periodontal examination by a dentist are identified.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was mailed to all 443 general dentists practicing in the province of Nova Scotia in the summer of 2009. The survey included questions on demographics and the various components of the periodontal examination. Simple and multiple logistic regression tests were used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Of the 279 (63%) responses received, 272 (61%) responses were eligible to be included in the analyses. The majority of responders (94.8%) reported performing periodontal examinations of their patients. However, only 37.8% and 43.3% of the dentists reported performing full-mouth and selective probing depth measurements, respectively. Dentists who practiced in urban locations (P = 0.05), dentists whose practices were situated <5 km from a periodontist (P = 0.08), and dentists who planned to take a continuing education course in periodontal plastic surgery in the next 2 years (P = 0.07) were more likely to perform a periodontal examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of dentists in our study report performing periodontal examinations of their patients, only a small portion report recording complete probing depth measurements or using appropriate radiographs in their examinations. These practices could lead to an underestimation of diagnosis and treatment of periodontal disease.

Attitudes regarding specialist referrals in periodontics

OBJECTIVE

To examine the attitudes of dental practitioners towards specialist periodontal referral in the North East of England.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 10 practitioners. Interviews continued until data saturation occurred. The data were organised using a framework and analysed by two researchers working independently.

RESULTS

Perceptions of periodontal disease and treatment appear to be heavily influenced by the NHS remuneration system. Treatment in general practice was limited to simple scaling and there was an apparent reluctance to treat advanced periodontitis. Such cases were commonly referred to specialists, confirming the demand for a referral service in periodontics. The perceived potential for medico-legal consequences was a strong driver of referrals. Distance to the referral centre and the perceived costs of treatment were significant barriers to referral. Dentists valued the specialist's personal reputation and clinical skills more highly than academic status. Deficiencies in communication between primary and secondary care were highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased resources are required to manage periodontal diseases within the NHS. There is a need for a periodontal referral service in the North East of England to improve accessibility to specialist care. This would appear to be most appropriately delivered by increased numbers of specialist practitioners.