Behavioral Interventions on Periodontitis Patients to Improve Oral Hygiene: A Systematic Review

The use of patient-related outcomes (PRO) and experience (PRE) in assessing the periodontal and implant patient

The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence with regard to behavioral and psychosocial assessment of the periodontitis patient, the candidate for implant therapy, and the peri-implantitis patient. Periodontitis has an adverse effect on quality of life and its treatment can lead to significant improvements experienced by the patient. The latter is true for rehabilitation with dental implants, although patients harbor diverse expectations and perceptions of implant therapy, which can often interfere with satisfaction and/or influence long-term success. A thorough behavioral assessment of the candidate for implant therapy is essential, which should include, perceptions, expectations, as well as risk for behavioral disorders. Remedial action is essential to correct misperceptions and any identified risks. Finally, patients have limited awareness of limited ability to identify signs of peri-implantitis. The diagnosis of peri-implantitis can be a cause of significant distress, resentment, and loss of trust to the treatment and the caregivers. Despite documented value in clinical research, currently available instruments assessing patient-reported outcomes have little application in day-to-day clinical practice. Face-to-face patient to doctor open-ended communication remains the most effective way to comprehensively establish the long-term "therapeutic alliance" essential for the long journey for the periodontitis patient.

Motivational Interviewing on Periodontal Treatment Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review investigated the clinical efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) in improving oral hygiene and periodontal health in patients with periodontal diseases.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases up to May 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of MI on periodontal conditions in patients with gingivitis, periodontitis, and peri‑implantitis were included. After data screening, a risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. The meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Out of 2108 records screened, 7 RCTs involving 474 patients were included in the qualitative synthesis, with 6 of these studies included in the meta-analysis. Amongst these, 5 studies had a high RoB and 2 had some concerns about bias. Although individual studies reported varied results regarding the effects of MI on different periodontal indices and parameters at different time points, the pooled results revealed no significant difference in the overall effect on plaque level, bleeding on probing, and gingival inflammation between the MI and control groups. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to suggest any significant effect on attachment loss or probing depth.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is insufficient to support the effectiveness of MI as an adjunctive intervention for improving oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes. However, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional high-quality studies with standardised MI interventions are required to derive definite conclusions.