METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P dental treatment for periodontitis patients at public sector specialist settings were substantial and comparable with some non-communicable diseases. These findings provide basis for identifying potential cost-reducing strategies, estimating economic burden of periodontitis management and performing economic evaluation of the specialist periodontal programme.
Materials and Methods: A self-administered questionnaire constructed in local Malay language consisting of 13 questions on sociodemographic details and 10 questions on the knowledge domain was distributed to eligible respondents while they were waiting for their consultation in the periodontal clinic waiting hall. There were 330 study participants aged 16 years old and above, who participated in this study from all 12 dental clinics in the state of Perlis, Malaysia. Data were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sociodemographic data, whereas association between potential factor and the knowledge of awareness was found using the Pearson Chi-square test of independence or a Fisher's exact test, depending on the eligibility criteria.
Results: Our study showed that 4.5% (n = 15) of the respondents were not aware that smoking did add risk for oral cancer, 14.5% (n = 48) were not aware that smoking could cause gum disease. Smoking status was significantly associated with the awareness of smoking effect on gum disease (P = 0.002). The proportion of the active smokers being aware that smoking could potentially cause gum disease was considerably less as compared to the nonsmokers (62.7% vs. 83.3%).
Conclusions: Continuous dental health campaigns and awareness program are crucial to instil awareness and health-seeking behavior as well as to enforce public's knowledge.