HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 132, No 11, 1557-1569. © 2001 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by HENKE, C. J. Articles by FINKELMAN, R. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by HENKE, C. J. Articles by FINKELMAN, R. D. Related Collections Pharmacology

The CHIP (CHlorhexidine In Periodontitis) study

Background. The authors previously suggested that an adjunctive, controlled-release chlorhexidine, or CHX, chip may reduce periodontal surgical needs at little additional cost. This article presents an economic analysis of the CHX chip in general dental practice.

Methods. In a one-year prospective clinical trial, 484 chronic periodontitis patients in 52 general practices across the United States were treated with either scaling and root planing, or SRP, plus any therapy prescribed by treating, unblinded dentists; or SRP plus other therapy as above but including the CHX chip. Economic data were collected from bills, case report forms and 12-month treatment recommendations from blinded periodontist evaluators.

Results. Total dental charges were higher for SRP + CHX chip patients vs. SRP patients when CHX chip costs were included (P = .027) but lower when CHX chip costs were excluded (P = .012). About one-half of the CHX chip acquisition cost was offset by savings in other charges. SRP + CHX chip patients were about 50 percent less likely to undergo surgical procedures than were SRP patients (P = .021). At the end of the trial, periodontist evaluators recommended similar additional procedures for both groups: SRP, about 46 percent; maintenance, about 37 percent; surgery, 56 percent for SRP alone and 63 percent for SRP + CHX chip.

Conclusions. Adjunctive CHX chip use for general-practice patients with periodontitis increased costs but reduced surgeries over one year. At study’s end, periodontists recommended similar additional surgical treatment for both groups.

Clinical Implications. In general practice, routine use of the CHX chip suggests that costs will be partially offset by reduced surgery over at least one year.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. Finkelman, A. M. Polson, and I. A. Mjor Controlled Clinical Trials and Practice-based Research in Dentistry J. Dent. Res., December 1, 2008; 87(12): e2 - e2. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Finkelman, A. M. Polson, and I. A. Mjor Controlled Clinical Trials and Practice-based Research in Dentistry Journal of Dental Research, December 1, 2008; 87(12): e2 - e2. [Full Text] [PDF]