Decision Making on the Non surgical, Surgical Treatment on Chronic Adult Periodontitis

The purpose of this study was to make and ascertain a decision making process on the base of patient-oriented utilitarianism in the treatment of patients of chronic adult periodontitis. Fifty subjects were chosen in Yonsei Dental hospital and the other fifty were chosen in Severance dental hospital according to the selection criteria. Fifty four patients agreed in this study. NS group(N=32) was treated with scaling and root planing without any surgical intervention, the other S group(N=22) done with flap operation. During the active treatment and healing time, all patients of both groups were educated about the importance of oral hygiene and controlled every visit to the hospital. When periodontal treatment needed according to the diagnostic results, some patients were subjected to professional tooth cleaning and scaling once every 3 months according to an individually designed oral hygienic protocol. Probing depth was recorded on baseline and 18 months after treatments. A questionnaire composed of 6 kinds(hygienic easiness, hypersensitivity, post treatment comfort, complication, functional comfort, compliance) of questions was delivered to each patient to obtain the subjective evaluation regarding the results of therapy. The decision tree for the treatment of adult periodontal disease was made on the result of 2 kinds of periodontal treatment and patient's ubjective evaluation. The optimal path was calculated by using the success rate of the results as the probability and utility according to relative value and the economic value in the insurance system. The success rate to achieve the diagnostic goal of periodontal treatment as the remaining pocket depth less than 3mm and without BOP was 0.83±0.12 by non surgical treatment and 0.82±0.14 by surgical treatment without any statistically significant difference. The moderate success rate of more than 4mm probing pocket depth were 0.17 together. The utilities of non-surgical treatment results were 100 for a result with less than 3mm probing pocket depth, 80 for the other results with more than 4mm probing pocket depth, 0 for the extraction. Those of surgical treatment results were the same except 75 for the results with more than 4mm. The pooling results of subjective evaluation by using a questionnaire were 60% for satisfaction level and 40% for no satisfaction level in the patient group receiving nonsurgical treatment and 33% and 67% in the other group receiving surgical treatment. The utilities for 4 satisfaction levels were 100, 75, 60, 50 on the base of that the patient would express the satisfaction level with normal distribution. The optimal path of periodontal treatment was rolled back by timing the utility on terminal node and the success rate, the distributed ratio of patient's satisfaction level. Both results of the calculation was non surgical treatment. Therefore, it can be said that non-surgical treatment may be the optimal path for this decision tree of treatment protocol if the goal of the periodontal treatment is to achieve the remaining probing pocket depth of less than 3mm for adult chronic periodontitis and if the utilitarian philosophy to maximise the expected utility for the patients is advocated.ope