Diabetes mellitus and periodontal disease: awareness and practice among doctors working in public general out-patient clinics in Kowloon West Cluster of Hong Kong

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia secondary to dysregulated insulin activity. It is a major cause of blindness, kidney failure, heart attack, stroke and lower limb amputation. Periodontal disease or periodontitis is a chronic oral infection that results in loss of periodontal attachment, bone destruction and eventually the loss of teeth. Features of periodontal disease may include swollen and bleeding gum, gum recession, gum pocket formation, bad breath and loose teeth.

DM is widely accepted as a major risk factor for periodontal disease. One study showed that patients with DM had approximately three-fold increased risk in developing periodontal disease [1]. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of periodontal disease in patients with type 2 DM when compared with non-DM controls (50% versus 36%) [2]. Besides prevalence, DM also affects the severity and progression of periodontal disease [3]. Patients with poorly controlled DM may have higher risk of developing severe periodontal disease when compared with non-DM controls [4]. They also have more severe gingival bleeding and higher level of gingival inflammation than those with well controlled DM or non-DM controls [5, 6]. Poorly controlled DM patients also have more advanced alveolar bone loss [7, 8] and periodontal destruction [9, 10], worse outcome following periodontal treatment [11], more recurrent periodontal infection and less favorable long term prognosis [12]. Periodontal disease is therefore regarded as the sixth complication of DM [13].

Conversely, periodontal disease may worsen the glucose control in DM patients. There is growing evidence to suggest that the relationship between DM and periodontal disease is bidirectional [14‐16]. Periodontal disease has been shown to adversely affect glucose control in DM patients and also increase the risk of developing DM complications [17]. DM patients with severe periodontal disease are more prone to other DM complications and have a higher mortality rate than those DM patients without severe periodontal disease [18]. Moreover, effective periodontal treatment appears to improve DM control. Patients with type 2 DM receiving comprehensive dental treatment is associated with improvement in their glucose control with reduction of 0.9% in HbA1c level when compared with those DM patients without dental treatment [19]. Provided that the HbA1c reduction could be sustained, it would translate into a reduction of DM complications and mortality [20].

Both DM and periodontal disease are prevalent. The World Health Organization reported that in 2014, globally 8.5% of adults aged 18 years and above had DM [21] while 10–15% of the world populations suffered from severe periodontitis [22].

In Hong Kong, the prevalence of both diseases was even higher. Locally, the prevalence of type 2 DM was about 10% [23]. According to the Oral Health Survey 2011 in Hong Kong, about 40% adults and 60% of non-institutionalized elderly had some degree of periodontal disease [24, 25].

A large proportion of DM patients in Hong Kong are managed in General Out-Patient Clinics (GOPCs) which belong to the public sector. According to Hospital Authority (HA) internal statistics 2016, about 35% of all DM patients in Hong Kong are managed in GOPCs and Kowloon West Cluster (KWC) GOPCs are responsible for ¼ of them. Dental service in Hong Kong is mainly provided by private dentists and hence majority of patients with periodontal disease are managed in the private sector.

It is expected that if doctors know that two conditions are associated, when treating either one condition, they would look for the other condition and hence leading to better practice. However this may not be always true. Literature showed that better awareness might or might not be associated with better practice. In a study on primary care physicians in Spain, better knowledge of the physicians on antibiotics use was shown to be associated with more appropriate prescription of antibiotics [26]. Conversely in another study on residents of various specialties in an Iranian hospital, though the residents’ knowledge and awareness on hand hygiene was satisfactory, they had poor hand hygiene practice [27].

This study aimed to answer the two research questions: 1) were our public primary care doctors aware of the bidirectional relationship between DM and periodontal disease? 2) if they were aware of the relationship, did this influence their daily practice? Doctors working in the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in KWC of HA were chosen for the study. At the time of the study, this department was the largest among the 7 Family Medicine departments in HA. It had the largest number of doctors and clinics and was responsible for the management of ¼ of all DM patients attending GOPCs in Hong Kong.

At least 10% Hong Kong population suffer from type 2 DM [23] and 40% people have some degree of periodontal disease [24]. With such high prevalence, it is expected that many people are suffering from both conditions. It is now well established that there is an interrelationship between them and such relationship appears to be bidirectional [14‐16, 34]. Few studies were done to explore primary care doctors’ awareness of the interrelationship between DM, periodontal disease and their corresponding practice. One study in India surveyed medical interns on their awareness of periodontal disease in diabetic patients [35]. Another study in Jordan surveyed a mixture of primary care doctors and other specialists on this topic [36]. However, the authors did not consent to release their questionnaire on request and the questionnaire used was likely to be in their local language. Thus, a tailor made questionnaire was designed with the help of a periodontology professor and it has passed through the process of validation.

Majority of our participants were aware that there was a relationship between DM and periodontal disease. This knowledge was not affected by their age, years of experience, training status, demography or oral health behavior. They acquired the knowledge mostly from clinical experience and undergraduate medical curriculum (Fig. 1).

When we analyzed the awareness of the participants in more detail, it was found that there were significantly more people knowing the DM-to-periodontitis relationship than people knowing the periodontitis-to-DM relationship. There was also no association between the awareness of DM-to-periodontitis and periodontitis-to-DM relationships. Thus, it can be postulated that perhaps participants acquired the DM-periodontitis bidirectional knowledge separately from different sources or settings. It is also possible that whenever the relationship of DM and periodontal disease was discussed in literature, conference etc., the bidirectional relationship was inadequately emphasized. Furthermore, the DM-to-periodontitis relationship may be more frequently mentioned than the periodontitis-to-DM relationship in non-dental literature and conference.

The last part of the study aimed at exploring if awareness of the relationship between DM and periodontal disease turns into practice. There was big contrast between awareness and practice results. Although participants’ awareness of the various relationships between DM and periodontal disease was at least 60% (Q5 the lowest), only less than 10% participants often (defined as ≥50% of all DM patients) asked or examined their DM patients on dental problem and 12.1% recommended their DM patients to see dentist. Logistic regression showed that awareness had no effect on clinical practice though clinical experience, FM specialist status and personal interdental cleaning habit were associated with some periodontal health concern practice. The study in Jordan reported that 70% doctors knew the association between DM and oral health but only 53% recommended their DM patients to see dentist regularly [36]. In terms of awareness, doctors in Hong Kong seemed to be better than doctors in Jordan, but this was not observed in terms of recommendation. However, the study in Jordan comprised only 39.3% primary care doctors (others are endocrinologists, physicians and doctors of other specialties) from three different sources (university hospitals, private hospitals and community health clinics) and the exact percentage of ‘regular’ recommendation was not defined. Thus, results of the two studies can only be compared with caution. This high awareness but low recommendation phenomenon was also seen in another study in which 100% doctors were aware of a relationship between periodontal disease and general health but only 10% doctors referred their patients to dentists without patients asking for it [37].

It is noted that even endocrinologists, the expert in DM management may not recommend their patients to see dentist often. There was a study in China comparing endocrinologists and dentists on their awareness and practice regarding DM and periodontitis. In that study, only 26.6% endocrinologists reported that they frequently advised their DM patients to visit dentists [38]. In contrast, 61.2% dentists in this study reported frequent referral of their patients with severe periodontitis for DM evaluation.

In the Iranian hand hygiene study, poor hand hygiene practice among the residents was observed despite satisfactory knowledge on hand hygiene. The author attributed the reasons to time constraint and high workload of the residents [27]. In the current study, primary care doctors’ knowledge of the DM-periodontitis relationship also did not translate into practice. Thus their DM patients were unlikely to benefit much from their doctors’ knowledge. The reasons behind this phenomenon were not explored in this study but the predominantly private dental system in Hong Kong may be an obstacle for dental referral from public doctors. Even if a public doctor suggests a DM patient to see a private dentist, the patient may be reluctant to go in view of the cost. Another postulation is related to prioritization of problems and time constraint of doctors. DM patients usually have multiple medical co-morbidities such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, and the issue of polypharmacy is not uncommon. Apart from managing all these, doctors may also need to handle other episodic illness during follow up. Hence, managing periodontal disease may be put at lower priority within limited consultation time. Thus doctors in this study might have a common reason with the Iranian residents as far as poor translation of knowledge into practice was concerned. Other contributing factors warrant further research. Apart from enhancement on doctors’ practice, educating patients on the bidirectional relationship between DM and periodontal disease may also facilitate comprehensive management of both diseases.

The main limitation of this study was that only public doctors in one geographical location in Hong Kong were surveyed. The conclusion can only be applied to the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care of KWC and cannot be generalized to public primary care doctors in other geographical locations or private primary care doctors in Hong Kong. A better study design can be achieved by random sampling all primary care doctors practicing in both private and public sectors so as to get more representative results. Including private doctors in the survey may be able to answer the question if dental referral rate from public doctors is significantly different from that of private doctors. Follow up questionnaires or qualitative studies could also be designed to explore more comprehensively the reasons why the surveyed primary care doctors did not recommend their DM patients to see dentists. Another limitation was that only bivariate instead of multivariate logistic regression was done. The latter required a sample even larger than our target population in order to analyze all the possible predictors simultaneously.

The survey was anonymous and included only doctors as study subjects. This was expected to minimize dishonesty in the answers. However, reporting bias could not be completely eliminated. Participants with unfavorable data (e.g. not aware of the relationship between DM and periodontal disease or not brushing teeth often) might have been more reluctant to return the questionnaire.

A high proportion of the surveyed doctors in this study were aware of the relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease. More of them were aware of the DM-to-periodontitis relationship than the reverse periodontitis-to-DM relationship. Acquiring the knowledge regarding relationship between DM and periodontal disease may not benefit patients of the doctors concerned as the latter seldom appropriately put the knowledge into practice. Further measures to promote doctors’ practice and to enhance patients’ knowledge on DM and periodontal disease should be explored.