Tooth Loss in Patients under Periodontal Maintenance in a Private Practice: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence and causes of tooth loss in periodontal subjects from a private practice in Brazil. Two trained examiners extracted data from the records of subjects who sought periodontal treatment from 1980 to 2013. Only records of patients who completed the non-surgical periodontal treatment and had at least one visit for maintenance were included. Data were analyzed by chi-square test, Student’s t-test, Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox regression. A total of 3,319 records were reviewed and 737 records included (58.6% women, mean age of 46.6±13.0 years at the beginning of the treatment). Maintenance period ranged from 1 to 33 years (7.4±6 years). During this period, 202 individuals (27.4%) lost 360 teeth, 47.5% of losses within the first five years (n=171). Non-compliers lost more teeth than compliers (p<0.001), respectively 211 and 149 teeth. Regarding reasons of tooth loss, 84 individuals lost 38% of the teeth from periodontal disease progression (n=137). Survival analysis showed that most patients lost only one tooth from periodontal disease, and differences in the survival rates between compliers and non-compliers were observed following the second tooth loss. Approximately one-third of tooth losses was related to periodontal disease progression, and there was stability in time of the proportion of losses from disease progression and other reasons. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that compliant patients in a private practice lose fewer teeth than do non-compliers. Among compliers, periodontal disease progression was not the main cause of tooth loss.

Key Words:
periodontal diseases; tooth loss; dental scaling; long-term care.

Resumo

O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar a incidência e causas de perda dentária em pacientes em manutenção periódica preventiva (MPP) de uma clínica privada. Dois examinadores extraíram os dados de registros de pacientes que procuraram tratamento periodontal entre 1980 a 2013. Os registros de pacientes que completaram o tratamento periodontal não cirúrgico e tiveram ao menos uma visita de MPP foram incluídos. Os dados foram avaliados utilizando os testes chi-quadrado, T de Student, curva de sobrevida de Kaplan-Meier e regressão de Cox. Dos 3.319 prontuários, 737 foram incluídos (58,6% mulheres, 46,6±13,0 anos). O período de MPP variou de 1 a 33 anos (7,4±6 anos). Durante este período, 202 indivíduos (27,4%) perderam 360 dentes, 47,5% das perdas durante os primeiros 5 anos de manutenção (n=171). Indivíduos irregulares nas consultas de MPP perderam mais dentes (p<0.001) do que indivíduos com regularidade, 211 e 149 dentes respectivamente. Oitenta e quatro indivíduos perderam 38% de dentes por progressão de doença periodontal (n=137). A maioria dos indivíduos perdeu 1 dente por doença periodontal, e foram observadas diferenças na sobrevida a partir da segunda perda dentária quando comparados indivíduos regulares e irregulares na MPP. Aproximadamente um terço dos dentes perdidos estava relacionado à progressão de doença periodontal. Foi observada uma estabilidade na proporção de perdas por progressão de doença e outras razões ao longo do tempo. Desta forma, conclui-se que indivíduos com uma frequência regular de MPP perdem menos dentes e a progressão de doença nesses indivíduos não é a principal razão para perda dentária.

Introduction

Infectious and inflammatory periodontal diseases are subdivided as gingivitis when limited to protective tissues and as periodontitis when the supporting tissues of the tooth are affected. Although both inflammatory processes are reversible, periodontitis clearly expresses an imbalance between bacterial aggression and host response, leaving the patient at constant risk ¹. This is a direct consequence of the chronic nature of these diseases. In this sense, it is possible to observe the importance of a longitudinal follow-up of the treated patients so that any imbalances in the pathophysiological axis can immediately be diagnosed, seeking to maintain the results after active therapy ².

Periodic Preventive Maintenance (PPM) is a procedure based on regular established visits following the active periodontal treatment, well known as an essential strategy to preserve periodontal health for treated and rehabilitated patients and as a preventive strategy for healthy patients ². Since the 30-year study by Axelsson et al. ³, it is well established that the incidence of caries and periodontal disease, as well as tooth mortality, is very small in patients under PPM. Chambrone & Chambrone ⁴ observed low rates of tooth loss during the maintenance phase of periodontal therapy, and an incidence of 0.92 teeth extracted per year and per patient. Also, studies have demonstrated that the compliant patients regularly attending maintenance consultations have a lower rate of tooth loss than do non-compliant patients ⁵.

A systematic review reported that data regarding factors of influence on tooth loss during PPM is still heterogeneous, not allowing definitive conclusions. Some factors such as age, smoking and initial tooth prognosis were found to be associated with tooth loss ². Despite this heterogeneity, overall, patients must always be instructed to attend periodic periodontal maintenance appointments. Most of those studies are, however, performed in an academic environment and few studies with large sample sizes are available.

Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the incidence and causes of tooth loss in patients treated by non-surgical periodontal therapy and maintained in a program of periodontal maintenance in a Brazilian private practice clinic. The hypothesis was that patients under PPM lose fewer teeth and that periodontal disease progression is not responsible for the majority of tooth losses.

Material and Methods

An analysis was performed by a census conducted on file records of a private clinic in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil, composed of 3 periodontists (RVO, CKR, SCG). The file records were initially coded with numbers by the legal responsible (CKR) not involved with the present study. Two trained examiners extracted data from the records for all patients treated between the years of 1980 and 2013 (AFS and MM). The Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul approved the study protocol (n. 21648).

All records from private practice in which a non-surgical therapy is the main treatment performed, i.e. when the surgical therapy is not the first choice for periodontal disease treatment, were eligible. From those, the ones from patients with diagnosis of gingivitis and chronic or aggressive periodontitis ⁶ that completed the non-surgical periodontal treatment and made at least one visit for PPM were included. Three experienced periodontists (RVO, CKR and SCG) treated all patients with hand instruments (curettes and files) and without use of any adjunctive medication, except for the use of pain control when necessary. After treatment, subjects were included in the PPM, which consisted in full-mouth clinical examination, supragingival scaling and polishing and subgingival debridement (using Gracey curettes and periodontal files, rubber cups and abrasive paste). Oral hygiene instructions and additional interventions (restorations, prosthetic rehabilitation, extractions etc.) were provided according to individual needs.

Data regarding age, gender, systemic condition, smoking status, regularity in time interval between appointments (compliers and non-compliers), periodontal diagnosis, years and number of maintenance visits, tooth loss during treatment and reasons for underlying tooth loss during maintenance were collected. Reasons of tooth loss were categorized as ¹ immediate prognosis (tooth was considered lost during treatment, but it was kept in mouth while rehabilitation procedures were being provided, or by patient’s option); ² periodontal disease progression (increase in clinical attachment loss up to the moment it was not possible to maintain tooth in function); ³ non-treatable endodontic pathological processes; ⁴ fracture; ⁵ endo-periodontal lesions; ⁶ prosthetic/rehabilitation needs or ⁷ others.

Systemic condition was assessed for diabetes, cardio-diseases (e.g., hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke) and other conditions (e.g., arthritis, hyper- or hypothyroidism, obesity). Patients’ self-reported smoking status was categorized as smokers, non-smokers and former smokers. The definition of compliers and non-compliers was according to Costa et al., 2012, compliers being considered those showing 100% cooperation with the recall visits interval suggested by the periodontist. Non-compliers were considered those that lost any regular visit but continued, irregularly, with their PMP appointments ⁷.

Statistical data analysis included a description of the sample assessed by chi-square test and Student’s t-test when appropriate. Differences between patients with or without tooth loss during the PPM phase and between those who lost 1, 2 or more teeth were calculated with a chi-square analysis for the entire sample (n=737 subjects). Among lost teeth, reasons for extractions were calculated with a chi-square analysis (n=202 teeth).

A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed at patient level (n=737) and at tooth level (i.e., for those patients for whom data regarding number of present teeth at baseline was available; n=328) to show the survival curves of tooth loss over time, related to factors that might have affected it. For this analysis, tooth loss was considered the outcome variable. Time of follow-up was the explanatory variable, and compliers/non-compliers subjects, molar/non-molar teeth, tooth loss for periodontal disease progression/other reasons were the comparison groups. The survival distribution was then compared with the test statistics for equality of survival distribution with the log-rank test.

To determine the predictors of tooth loss during PPM, the Cox regression model was used. Gender (male/female), age (continuous variable), compliance (yes/no), smoking status (smoker/non-smoker/former smoker), systemic condition (healthy/diseased), tooth loss during treatment (yes/no) and appointments per year (1/2/more) were the variables included in the univariate analysis. Variables with p<0.25 values were included in the multivariate analysis. SPSS 20.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was used for all analyses. Significance level was set as 5%.

Results

Thirty-three hundred nineteen records were reviewed. Those belonging to individuals that did not complete the periodontal treatment or did not return to at least one PPM appointment (n=849), received just implants or esthetic surgeries (n=203), were submitted only to an initial exam (n=1,422) or received non-periodontal treatments (n=108) were not included (n=2,582). Seven hundred thirty seven records were included in the study. The sample consisted in records of 432 women (58.6%) and had a mean age of 46.6±13.0 at the beginning of the treatment. All included subjects had only non-surgical periodontal treatment. During the periodontal treatment, 183 individuals (24.9%) lost 278 teeth, loss rate being 1.52 teeth per subject.

PPM ranged from 1 to 33 years, averaging 7.4±6.0 years of maintenance. Half of the sample (375 patients, 50.9%) attended a periodontal maintenance routine for more than five years. Thirty-eight of these patients (5%) had more than 20 years of maintenance. During the PPM period, 202 individuals (27.4%) had tooth loss. Three hundred sixty teeth were lost (1.78 teeth per subject), 171 of these teeth (47.5%) lost within the first five years. Among individuals who lost teeth during the PPM phase, 111 patients (55%) had a time interval between maintenance visits greater than the one set by the dentist and were responsible for 59% of the total teeth loss (211 teeth).

During PPM, there was no significant difference between tooth-loss and no-tooth-loss groups in relation to gender (p=0.676) or systemic condition (p=0.454). Patients who had a regular appointment for PPM (compliers) lost fewer teeth compared to non-compliers (p<0.001). Also, there was a significant difference between smoking status (p=0.024), age group (p=0.003), years of PPM (p<0.001) and number of PPM visits per year (p=0.006; Table 1).

Table 1
Characteristics of the sample - differences between patients with or without tooth loss during PPM^b

Subject - n(%)	No tooth loss	Tooth loss	Total	p-valuea
Total	535 (72.6)	202 (27.4)	737 (100)
Gender
Male	224 (73)	81 (27)	305 (100)	0.663
Female	311 (72)	121 (28)	432 (100)
Smoking Status
Smoker	54 (61.4)	34 (39)	88 (100)	0.024
Non-smoker	455 (74.6)	155 (25.4)	610 (100)
Former smoker	26 (67)	13 (33)	39 (100)
Systemic Condition
Healthy	441 (73.1)	162 (26.9)	603 (100)	0.454
Diabetes	17 (65.4)	9 (34.6)	26 (100)
Cardio-diseases	38 (77.6)	11 (22.4)	49 (100)
Other	66 (76.7)	20 (23.3)	59 (100)
Compliance
Compliant	323 (78)	91 (22)	414 (100)	<0.001
Non-compliant	212 (65.6)	111 (34.4)	323 (100)
Age (years)
≤ 47 years	218 (79.6)	56 (20.4)	274 (100)	0.003
≥ 48 years	178 (66.7)	89 (33.3)	267 (100)
Unknown	139 (70.9)	57 (29.1)	196 (100)
PPMb period (years)
≤5	319 (88.1)	43 (11.9)	362(100)	<0.001
5-10	126 (67.4)	61 (32.6)	187(100)
>10	90 (47.9)	98 (52.1)	188 (100)
PPMb visits/year
≤ 1	335	105	440	0.006
≥ 2	200	97	297

• ^aChi-square test, ^bPPM: Periodic Preventive Maintenance.

In relation to the reasons underlying tooth loss, 84 individuals (11.4%) lost 137 teeth (38%) because of periodontal disease progression and 64 out of the 137 teeth (46.7%) were lost within the first 5 years of PPM. There was stability in the proportion of tooth loss due to periodontal disease and to other reasons over time. Tooth lost by periodontal disease varied from 28.6% to 44.7% when 5-year increments were considered. Table 2 shows the characteristics of teeth and population in relation to reasons for tooth loss (periodontal disease or others) during PPM. Other reasons underlying tooth loss were immediate prognosis (n=13, 4%), non-treatable endodontic pathological process (n=11, 3%), fracture (n=69, 19%), non-treatable endo-periodontal lesions (n=29, 8%), prosthetic/rehabilitation needs (n=61, 17%) and other reasons (n=40, 11%). When the number of tooth losses was categorized as 1 and 2 or more lost teeth, most individuals lost one tooth, with no significant difference according to gender, smoking status, systemic condition, age group or PPM visits per year. However, the difference was significant between compliers and non-compliers (p=0.022).

Table 2
Characteristics of teeth and population in relation to the reasons underlying tooth loss during periodic maintenance therapy

Teeth - n(%)	Periodontal disease	Other	Total	p-valuea
Total	137 (38.1)	223 (61.9)	360 (100)
Type of teeth
Single-rooted	29 (24.4)	90 (75.6)	119 (100)	<0.001
Two-rooted	38 (33.9)	74 (66.1)	112 (100)
Three-rooted	70 (54.3)	59 (45.7)	129 (100)
Gender
Female	93 (41.7)	130 (58.3)	223 (100)	0.069
Male	44 (32.1)	93 (67.9)	137 (100)
Smoking Status
Smoker	32 (47.1)	36 (52.9)	68 (100)	<0.001
Non-smoker	88 (32.7)	181 (67.3)	269 (100)
Former-smoker	17 (73.9)	6 (26.1)	23 (100)
Systemic Condition
Healthy	101 (34.6)	191 (65.4)	292 (100)	0.010
Diabetes	6 (46.2)	7 (53.8)	13 (100)
Cardio-diseases	14 (70)	6 (30)	20 (100)
Others	16 (45.7)	19 (54.3)	35 (100)

• ^a Chi-square test.

Survival analysis at patient level (Fig. 1A) showed that most patients lost only one tooth from periodontal disease. The survival rate increased from the first tooth loss (long-term survival rates of 91.1% among compliers and 85.4% among non-compliers) to the second (survival rates of 97.8% and 94.1% respectively) and third tooth lost (survival rates of 99.3% and 96.9% respectively) associated with the progression of periodontitis. Additionally, there was a difference in log-rank test results between compliers and non-compliers for the second (p=0.026) and third (p=0.021) loss due to periodontal disease, but not for the first tooth loss (p=0.133).

For the survival analysis at tooth level (Figs. 1B and 1C), only data from 328 subjects (n=8,624 teeth) were available. Concerning type of tooth, it was observed that non-molars had a higher survival rate compared to molar teeth (98.8% and 94.7% respectively, p<0.001). Similarly, tooth in complying subjects had a higher survival rate compared to non-compliers (98.2% and 96.7% respectively, p<0.001), when log-rank test was used. Considering reasons for tooth loss (n=207 lost teeth; 2.4%), no significant differences were found comparing periodontal disease progression with other reasons (p=0.072).

The Cox regression model for multivariate analysis showed that smoking status (smoker/non-smoker/former smoker), compliance (yes/no) and number of appointments per year of maintenance (1 or 2 or more) were predictors for tooth loss during PPM (Table 3). Gender (male/female), age (continuous variable) and tooth loss during treatment (yes/no) were not statistically significant.

Table 3
Multivariable Cox regression analysis for predictors of tooth loss for periodontal disease during periodic maintenance therapy

Parameter	β coefficient	SEa	p-value	95% CIb
Gender
Male (ref)
Female	-0.25	0.27	0.364	0.46-1.33
Age	0.02	0.01	0.139	0.99-1.04
Compliance
Non-compliers (ref)
Compliers	-0.89	0.29	0.002	0.23-0.72
Smoking
Smoker (ref)
Non-smoker	-0.79	0.32	0.014	0.24-0.85
Former smoker	0.24	0.44	0.582	0.54-3.03
Tooth loss during treatment
No (ref)
Yes	-0.12	0.27	0.671	0.52-1.52
Appointments per year
≥2 (ref)
≤1	1.06	0.28	<0.001	1.65-5.04

• ^aSE: standard error; ^bCI: confidence interval.

Discussion

The objectives of the present study were to assess the incidence and causes of tooth loss in patients under a program of Periodic Preventive Maintenance (PPM) from a private practice clinic in Brazil. Periodontal disease was the cause of 38% of the tooth losses, and patients under regular PMT lost fewer teeth. This study extends previous knowledge since showing the existence of stability in the proportion of teeth lost to periodontal disease and for other reasons over time in patients followed for up to 33 years.

The results herein showed that the overall rates of tooth loss were 0.5 per subject, 0.2 of which being due to periodontal causes. When considering only subjects who lost teeth during PPM (n=202), the rate was 1.8 and 0.7 respectively. Other studies have assessed tooth loss in private practice, showing rates of tooth loss from 0.1 to 3.3 per subject and from 0.4 to 1.8 when loss due to periodontal reasons was considered ^4,8,9,10,11.

In the present study, some teeth were extracted during the active periodontal treatment phase. This is in accordance with other studies ¹². After treatment, tooth loss due to periodontal disease progression accounted for 38% of the losses. This result differs from previous observations. A recent publication ¹³ found that 80% of tooth loss resulted from periodontal disease progression. In a long-term study, considering participants treated by a periodontist, but with regular maintenance appointments with hygienists or general practitioners, 73% of the tooth losses were due to periodontal disease ¹². The lower rate observed herein is probably because all appointments were performed by periodontists, and patients were kept under a strict periodontal maintenance protocol ³.

The present findings suggest that patients who complied regularly with maintenance appointments lost significantly fewer teeth than did non-compliers. Interestingly, the survival analysis at patient level showed that there were significant differences between compliers and non-compliers in relation to the second and third tooth loss for periodontal disease, but not for the first loss, indicating that long-term PPM benefits participants. Fifty-six percent of all patients fully complied with the recommended appointments, a smaller percentage than the 76% to 80% rate reported by Muller et al. ¹⁴, and a higher one than those in reports from other authors: 30.2% ¹⁵ and 33% ¹⁶. In the present sample, 55% of the patients who lost teeth were non-compliant. Interestingly, a recent retrospective study with 10 years of follow up, but with only 72 patients, did not observe significant differences in rates of tooth loss between compliers and non-compliers ¹⁷. On the other hand, the results herein are in accordance with previous studies with larger samples. A recent study with 134 Korean adults showed that poor compliers were more likely to lose teeth ¹⁸. Similar results were presented by a recent 5-year prospective study with 212 Brazilian participants that demonstrated significantly lower tooth loss among compliant patients ¹³. Also in accordance with previous studies, it was observed that a small number of individuals accounted for most of the tooth loss ^3,4,5.

The present results show similarities with previous studies regarding the type of teeth lost most frequently ^13,15. Thirty-three point two percent of the teeth lost in the present study were three-rooted, followed in frequency by single-rooted teeth (30.7%) and double-rooted teeth (28.9%). Recent literature has shown that loss of molar teeth is related to smoking status, lack of compliance and furcation involvement or baseline bone loss in patients treated for periodontitis and under supportive periodontal therapy ^19,20.

A recent systematic review showed that the reported logistic regression models for studies assessing risk factors for tooth loss in patients who have received periodontal treatment are not optimal ²¹. The authors also suggest that survival analysis should be considered in future research. In the present study, both Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox regression analyses were performed. The survival analysis at patient level (Fig. 1A) shows the proportion of subjects who did not experience tooth loss at a given point in time. The survival rates remained above 84% when considering tooth loss resulting from periodontal disease progression. When the survival curve is performed at tooth level (Figs. 1B and 1C), the survival rates remained above 94%, independent of the type of the tooth (molars and non-molars) and the compliance of the patient. This result corroborates the findings from Moghaddam et al. ²². They showed that, even for compromised teeth that underwent combined endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic therapy, the survival rate was between 83% and 98%. The Cox regression analysis showed that non-complying subjects and subjects that attended 0-1 appointments per year during the maintenance phase were more likely to lose teeth. This result is in agreement with a classical review of literature combined with clinical observations ²³⁾ that showed that maintenance care for treated periodontitis patients should be performed every 3 months. Another important finding from the regression model is that non-smokers lost fewer teeth than smokers, and no significant differences were observed between smokers and former smokers. These results are in accordance with previous findings ^2,13.

Figure 1
Cumulative survival analysis (in years) at patient level (n=737 subjects) for first, second and third tooth lost from periodontal disease (Fig. 1A) and at tooth level (n=328 subjects, n=8,624 teeth), comparing compliance and tooth type (Fig. 1B), and comparing reasons for tooth loss among lost teeth (n=207 teeth, Fig

Among the strong points of this study are the large sample involved, the sampling method, the extent of the observation period and the survival analysis. However, this study also has limitations. There were some difficulties in retrieving full sets of data from clinical records. Not all patients had clear data regarding age, so the unknown data were recorded as a missing value. Additionally, almost half of the file records did not give precise information about the number of teeth each patient had before starting the treatment, allowing the survival analysis at tooth level possible for only 50% of the sample.

In conclusion, within the limitations of this study, data show that among patients who lost teeth, only approximately one-third of the tooth losses were related to periodontal disease progression. In addition, there is stability in the proportion of tooth loss from periodontal disease progression and for other reasons over time. Moreover, patients who followed regular PPM appointments in a private practice clinic in Brazil were significantly less likely to lose teeth. The clinical implications of the findings are to reinforce the need of professionals, both dentists and dental hygienists, to encourage patients to perform a routine protocol of maintenance visits, avoiding periodontal disease progression and consequent tooth loss.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Cristiano Susin (Augusta University, USA) for the support in designing the statistical analysis; Dr. Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil), the legal responsible of the records from patients of the private clinic; and the Brazilian Foundation for the Development of Personnel in Higher Education (CAPES) for providing a scholarship for AFS.

References

• ¹
  Page, RC. The role of inflammatory mediators in the pathogenesis of periodontal disease. J Periodontal Res 1991;26:230-242.
• ²
  Chambrone, L; Chambrone, D; Lima, LA; Chambrone, LA. Predictors of tooth loss during long-term periodontal maintenance: a systematic review of observational studies. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37: 675-684.
• ³
  Axelsson, P; Nystrom, B; Lindhe, J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. Results after 30 years of maintenance. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:749-757.
• ⁴
  Chambrone, LA; Chambrone, L. Tooth loss in well-maintained patients with chronic periodontitis during long-term supportive therapy in Brazil. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33:759-764.
• ⁵
  Fardal, O; O’Neill, C; Gjermo, P; Fardal, E; Sandvik, L; Hansen, BF; et al.. The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment: a case study from a Norwegian specialist practice. J Periodontol 2012;83:1455-1462.
• ⁶
  Armitage, GC. Development of a classification system for periodontal diseases and conditions. Ann Periodontol 1999; 4:1-6.
• ⁷
  Costa, FO; Cota, LOM; Lages, EJP; Oliveira, APL; Cortelli, SC; Cortelli, JR; et al. Periodontal risk assessment model in a sample of regular and irregular compliers under maintenance therapy: a 3-year prospective study. J Periodontol 2012;83:292-300.
• ⁸
  Hirschfeld, L; Wasserman, B. A long-term survey of tooth loss in 600 treated periodontal patients. J Periodontology 1978;49:225-37.
• ⁹
  Fardal, O; Johannessen, AC; Linden, GJ. Tooth loss during maintenance following periodontal treatment in a periodontal practice in Norway. J Clin Periodontology 2004;31:550-555.
• ¹⁰
  Papantonopoulos, GH. Effect of periodontal therapy in smokers and non-smokers with advanced periodontal disease: results after maintenance therapy for a minimum of 5 years. J Periodontol 2004;75:839-843.
• ¹¹
  Tsami, A; Pepelassi, E; Kodovazenitis, G; Komboli, M. Parameters affecting tooth loss during periodontal maintenance in a Greek population. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1100-1107.
• ¹²
  Ravald, N; Johansson, CS. Tooth loss in periodontally treated patients: a long-term study of periodontal disease and root caries. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:73-9.
• ¹³
  Costa, FO; Lages ,EJ, Cota, LO; Lorentz, TC; Soares, RV; Cortelli, JR. Tooth loss in individuals under periodontal maintenance therapy: 5-year prospective study. J Periodontal Res 2014;49:121-128.
• ¹⁴
  Muller, S; Eickholz, P; Reitmeir, P; Eger, T. Long-term tooth loss in periodontally compromised but treated patients according to the type of prosthodontic treatment. A retrospective study. J Oral Rehabil 2013;40:358-367.
• ¹⁵
  Wood, WR; Greco, GW; McFall, WT Jr. Tooth loss in patients with moderate periodontitis after treatment and long-term maintenance care. J Periodontol 1989;60:516-520.
• ¹⁶
  Checchi, L; Montevecchi, M; Gatto, MR; Trombelli, L. Retrospective study of tooth loss in 92 treated periodontal patients. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:651-656.
• ¹⁷
  Seirafi, AH; Ebrahimi, R; Golkari, A; Khosropanah, H; Soolari, A. Tooth loss assessment during periodontal maintenance in erratic versus complete compliance in a periodontal private practice in Shiraz, Iran: a 10-year retrospective study. J Int Acad Periodontol 2014;16:43-49.
• ¹⁸
  Kim, SY; Lee, JK; Chang, BS; Um ,HS. Effect of supportive periodontal therapy on the prevention of tooth loss in Korean adults. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2014;44:65-70.
• ¹⁹
  Salvi, GE; Mischler, DC; Schmidlin, K; Matuliene, G; Pjetursson, BE; Brägger, U; et al. Risk factors associated with the longevity of multi-rooted teeth. Long-term outcomes after active and supportive periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:701-707.
• ²⁰
  Dannewitz, B; Krieger, JK; Husing, J; Eickholz, P. Loss of molars in periodontally treated patients: a retrospective analysis five years or more after active periodontal treatment. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33:53-61.
• ²¹
  Faggion, CM Jr; , Chambrone, L; Tu, YK. Quality of logistic regression reporting in studies of tooth survival after periodontal treatment. J Clin Periodontol 2014;41:1184-1192.
• ²²
  Moghaddam, AS; Radafshar, G; Taramsari, M; Darabi, F. Long-term survival rate of teeth receiving multidisciplinary endodontic, periodontal and prosthodontic treatments. J Oral Rehabil 2014;41:236-242.
• ²³
  Ramfjord, SP. Maintenance care for treated periodontitis patients. J Clin Periodontol 1987;14:433-437.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jul-Aug 2017

History

• Received
  11 May 2016
• Accepted
  29 Mar 2017