Arestin, a locally administered antibiotic containing minocycline, is frequently employed as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis. Its application directly to periodontal pockets aims to reduce bacterial load and promote healing. Despite its potential benefits in managing periodontal disease, patients often encounter challenges regarding financial coverage for this treatment.
The reimbursement landscape for dental procedures is complex. Many insurance plans prioritize coverage for diagnostic and preventative services, sometimes placing less emphasis on therapeutic interventions like locally delivered antibiotics. Historical precedents in dental insurance have often focused on restorative and surgical procedures, leading to disparities in coverage for adjunctive treatments. The absence of universal coverage can create financial burdens for patients requiring comprehensive periodontal care, potentially impacting their treatment decisions and overall oral health outcomes.
Several factors contribute to the lack of consistent insurance reimbursement. This article will explore the specific reasons for this situation, examining the varying coverage policies across different insurance providers, the documentation required for claims processing, and alternative financial options available to patients seeking Arestin treatment. It will also discuss the ongoing efforts to advocate for broader insurance coverage of adjunctive periodontal therapies to improve patient access and outcomes.
1. Policy Limitations
The absence of insurance coverage for Arestin is frequently rooted in specific limitations embedded within dental insurance policies. These limitations often dictate the scope of covered procedures, generally prioritizing restorative treatments, such as fillings and crowns, and basic preventive care, like cleanings and examinations. Consequently, adjunctive therapies, including locally administered antibiotics like Arestin, may fall outside the boundaries of standard coverage. This prioritization stems from actuarial calculations that aim to balance premium costs with anticipated expenditures, leading to a selective allocation of resources.
Many insurance plans categorize Arestin as a “non-essential” or “optional” treatment, particularly when alternative therapies, such as scaling and root planing alone, are considered viable. The interpretation of medical necessity, as defined by the insurance provider, becomes a critical determinant in coverage decisions. For instance, a policy might explicitly exclude coverage for locally delivered antimicrobials unless specific, pre-defined criteria related to disease severity or lack of response to conventional treatments are met. Such exclusions, detailed in the policy’s fine print, directly impact the patient’s ability to receive reimbursement for Arestin treatment. A patient whose plan focuses on restorative work will likely find periodontal treatments are subject to considerable limitations.
Understanding the policy limitations is crucial for both patients and dental professionals. Prior to initiating Arestin treatment, verifying the specifics of the patients insurance coverage, including any applicable exclusions or pre-authorization requirements, is essential. This proactive approach allows for informed decision-making and the exploration of alternative payment options, ensuring patients are aware of potential out-of-pocket expenses. Ultimately, the limitations within insurance policies serve as a primary reason why coverage for Arestin remains inconsistent and often unavailable.
2. Lack of Pre-Approval
The absence of pre-approval, or prior authorization, significantly contributes to the difficulties in securing insurance coverage for Arestin. Many dental insurance plans mandate pre-approval for specific procedures, including adjunctive therapies like locally delivered antibiotics. Failure to obtain this pre-approval can result in claim denials, irrespective of the perceived medical necessity of the treatment.
-
Procedural Requirement Omission
Many insurance providers require a formal request for pre-authorization, accompanied by detailed documentation supporting the need for Arestin. This documentation typically includes periodontal charting, radiographs, and a narrative justifying the treatment plan. When dental practices fail to submit this pre-approval request, or submit it incompletely, the insurance claim is routinely denied. This omission highlights a critical disconnect between clinical practice and insurance protocol, where perceived treatment necessity does not automatically translate into coverage approval. The responsibility for navigating these requirements rests primarily on the dental provider, and oversights can directly impact the patient’s financial burden.
-
Insufficient Justification
Even when a pre-approval request is submitted, it may be denied if the supporting documentation does not adequately justify the use of Arestin. Insurance companies often have specific criteria that must be met to demonstrate the medical necessity of the treatment. For example, a plan may require evidence of prior treatment failures, such as persistent inflammation despite thorough scaling and root planing, before approving coverage for Arestin. Generalized statements regarding periodontal inflammation are frequently insufficient. The justification must be supported by objective clinical findings, and the provider’s rationale must align with the insurance company’s pre-defined parameters. Therefore, comprehensive documentation is essential.
-
Time Constraints and Policy Lapses
The pre-approval process often involves time constraints that can affect the viability of securing coverage. Insurance companies may require a specific timeframe for submitting the pre-approval request, and the approval itself may be subject to expiration dates. Furthermore, a patient’s insurance coverage may change between the time of treatment planning and the actual procedure, potentially invalidating a previously obtained pre-approval. These temporal factors create uncertainty and require diligent monitoring by the dental practice. A lapse in coverage or an expired pre-approval can lead to claim denials, despite initial assurances of reimbursement.
-
Inconsistent Application of Guidelines
The application of pre-approval guidelines can vary significantly across different insurance providers, and even within the same company, based on the specific plan. This inconsistency creates a complex and challenging landscape for dental practices, as they must navigate a multitude of unique requirements. What is considered sufficient justification for one plan may be deemed inadequate by another. This variability necessitates thorough research and individualized attention to each patient’s insurance policy. Failure to recognize and adhere to these specific guidelines can result in pre-approval denials, ultimately contributing to the lack of coverage for Arestin.
The multifaceted challenges associated with pre-approval requirements underscore a significant obstacle to Arestin coverage. Procedural oversights, insufficient justification, time constraints, and inconsistent guidelines all contribute to claim denials. Addressing these challenges necessitates a collaborative effort between dental providers, patients, and insurance companies to streamline the pre-approval process and ensure equitable access to necessary periodontal treatments.
3. “Experimental” Designation
The classification of Arestin as “experimental” by some insurance providers constitutes a significant barrier to coverage. This designation often implies a lack of sufficient, long-term clinical data demonstrating unequivocal efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared to traditional periodontal treatments, leading to reluctance in reimbursement.
-
Insufficient Long-Term Outcome Data
Insurance companies frequently rely on extensive, longitudinal studies to validate the efficacy of new treatments. If the available data for Arestin primarily consists of short-term trials or studies with limited sample sizes, insurers may deem the evidence insufficient to warrant broad coverage. The absence of comprehensive data tracking long-term outcomes, such as sustained reduction in pocket depths or prevention of tooth loss, can lead to the “experimental” categorization. This lack of definitive long-term evidence raises concerns about the long-term value and predictability of Arestin in managing periodontal disease.
-
Lack of Consensus Among Dental Professionals
Variations in treatment philosophies and clinical guidelines among dental professionals contribute to the perception of Arestin as “experimental.” If there is no widespread consensus regarding the optimal use of Arestin, or if its application is primarily advocated by a subset of specialists, insurance companies may view its adoption as inconsistent and lacking broad-based support. Discrepancies in professional opinions regarding the appropriate indications for Arestin can further solidify its “experimental” status, hindering efforts to secure consistent insurance coverage.
-
Comparisons to Established Treatments
Insurance providers often evaluate the value of new treatments by comparing them to existing, well-established alternatives. If the incremental benefits of Arestin, compared to scaling and root planing or other traditional therapies, are not clearly demonstrated through rigorous clinical trials, insurers may question its added value. The absence of compelling evidence showcasing significant improvements in patient outcomes, beyond what can be achieved with conventional treatments, can contribute to its classification as “experimental” and restrict its coverage. It is necessary to differentiate Arestins impact from standard periodontal procedures.
-
Regulatory Approval vs. Reimbursement
While Arestin has received regulatory approval from bodies like the FDA, this approval does not automatically guarantee insurance coverage. Regulatory approval focuses on safety and efficacy for intended use, whereas reimbursement decisions are influenced by cost-effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and budget impact. Insurance companies often have their own internal processes for evaluating new technologies, independent of regulatory approvals. The discrepancy between regulatory clearance and reimbursement decisions underscores the complex landscape surrounding healthcare coverage, where regulatory status alone is insufficient to ensure widespread access.
The “experimental” designation, therefore, acts as a significant impediment to Arestin coverage. Insufficient long-term data, lack of professional consensus, limited demonstrated benefit over established treatments, and the separation between regulatory approval and reimbursement all contribute to this categorization, ultimately impacting patient access and treatment decisions.
4. Cost-Effectiveness Debate
The perception of value, specifically the balance between treatment cost and resulting health benefits, constitutes a pivotal factor influencing insurance coverage decisions. The absence of universal reimbursement for Arestin often stems from ongoing debate concerning its cost-effectiveness relative to alternative periodontal therapies.
-
Initial Acquisition Costs
Arestin presents a higher upfront cost compared to traditional scaling and root planing procedures. This disparity in initial expense prompts insurance providers to scrutinize the long-term benefits of Arestin more closely. Insurers often prioritize treatments demonstrating similar outcomes at lower costs, reflecting a focus on immediate budgetary impact. The incremental cost of Arestin must, therefore, be justified by demonstrably superior and sustained clinical improvements, a requirement often subject to rigorous evaluation and debate.
-
Long-Term Outcome Data and Recurrence Rates
The assessment of cost-effectiveness extends beyond initial expenses to encompass long-term outcomes and recurrence rates. If studies suggest that Arestin does not significantly reduce the need for future periodontal interventions compared to scaling and root planing alone, its value proposition diminishes. Insurers consider the lifetime cost of managing periodontal disease, factoring in the potential for repeated treatments and associated complications. The ability of Arestin to demonstrably decrease the overall burden of periodontal care is a key determinant in its cost-effectiveness evaluation.
-
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Comparative effectiveness research, which directly compares the outcomes of different treatment options, plays a crucial role in shaping insurance coverage decisions. If research indicates that Arestin provides only marginal benefits compared to less expensive alternatives, insurers are less likely to provide coverage. These comparative studies must account for factors such as patient-reported outcomes, clinical measures of disease progression, and the potential for adverse events. The relative effectiveness of Arestin, as determined through rigorous comparative studies, directly influences its perceived value and reimbursement potential.
-
Budget Impact Analysis
Insurance companies conduct budget impact analyses to assess the potential financial consequences of covering a new treatment. These analyses consider the prevalence of periodontal disease, the proportion of patients likely to benefit from Arestin, and the overall cost to the insurance plan. If widespread adoption of Arestin would significantly increase healthcare expenditures without a corresponding improvement in population health outcomes, insurers may opt to limit or deny coverage. The broader budgetary implications of incorporating Arestin into standard periodontal care thus influence its reimbursement prospects.
These considerations collectively contribute to the ongoing cost-effectiveness debate surrounding Arestin, impacting its insurance coverage. The higher initial cost, scrutiny of long-term outcomes, reliance on comparative effectiveness research, and assessment of budget impact all play pivotal roles in determining whether insurers deem Arestin a worthwhile investment. The absence of conclusive evidence demonstrating superior cost-effectiveness contributes to the challenges in securing widespread insurance reimbursement for this periodontal treatment.
5. Insufficient Documentation
Deficiencies in submitted paperwork frequently impede reimbursement for Arestin. Inadequate or incomplete documentation accompanying insurance claims can result in denials, regardless of medical necessity or policy coverage specifics. This administrative hurdle contributes significantly to the lack of consistent insurance support for this periodontal treatment.
-
Incomplete Periodontal Charting
Comprehensive periodontal charting provides critical data on pocket depths, bleeding on probing, and recession, all essential indicators of disease severity. Insurance companies require this detailed information to justify the use of Arestin. Incomplete charting, characterized by missing measurements or lack of standardization, undermines the justification for treatment. For example, if probing depths are not consistently recorded at six points around each tooth, the documentation fails to accurately represent the extent of periodontal inflammation. Such omissions weaken the claim and increase the likelihood of denial, as the insurer cannot adequately assess the need for adjunctive antibiotic therapy.
-
Missing or Unclear Radiographs
Radiographs, such as periapical or bitewing images, offer visual evidence of bone loss and other anatomical factors influencing periodontal disease. Insufficient or unclear radiographs limit the insurance company’s ability to evaluate the severity of the condition. For instance, if radiographs are outdated, poorly positioned, or lack adequate detail, they may not accurately depict the extent of bone loss surrounding affected teeth. This lack of clear radiographic evidence can prompt the insurer to question the necessity of Arestin, as the documentation fails to provide a comprehensive view of the underlying pathology. Claims submitted without adequate radiographic support are prone to rejection.
-
Lack of Narrative Justification
Even with complete charting and radiographs, a compelling narrative explaining the rationale for Arestin treatment is essential. This narrative should detail the patient’s specific condition, previous treatment attempts, and the expected benefits of Arestin. A generic or boilerplate justification, lacking patient-specific details, often proves insufficient. For example, the narrative should explain why scaling and root planing alone are unlikely to achieve the desired outcome in this particular case. It should also describe how Arestin is expected to address specific clinical challenges, such as deep pockets or persistent inflammation. Without a clear and convincing narrative, the insurance company may view Arestin as an unnecessary or inappropriate intervention, resulting in claim denial.
-
Failure to Document Treatment Response
Following Arestin treatment, documenting the patient’s response is crucial for future claims and appeals. This documentation should include follow-up periodontal charting, radiographs, and clinical observations. If the initial claim was approved based on specific criteria, demonstrating a positive treatment response reinforces the initial justification. Conversely, if the treatment was initially denied, documenting improvements after treatment, even if self-funded, can strengthen an appeal. For example, a reduction in pocket depths or bleeding on probing after Arestin treatment provides objective evidence of its effectiveness. Failure to document these positive changes weakens the case for coverage and makes it more difficult to secure reimbursement in subsequent claims.
The prevalence of insufficient documentation directly contributes to the difficulties patients and dental providers face when seeking insurance coverage for Arestin. Comprehensive and meticulously prepared documentation, including detailed charting, clear radiographs, and a compelling narrative justification, is essential for navigating the complexities of insurance claims processing and maximizing the likelihood of reimbursement.
6. Alternative Treatments Favored
The preference for alternative periodontal treatments by insurance providers directly impacts coverage decisions for Arestin. When equivalent or near-equivalent clinical outcomes can be achieved with less expensive or more established therapies, insurance companies often favor these alternatives, resulting in the denial of claims for Arestin. This prioritization stems from the insurer’s responsibility to manage costs while providing adequate care to policyholders. The availability of viable substitutes, therefore, acts as a significant deterrent to Arestin reimbursement.
Scaling and root planing, for instance, represents a primary alternative to Arestin in the management of periodontitis. This procedure, involving the removal of plaque and calculus from tooth surfaces and root surfaces, is a foundational element of periodontal therapy. Insurance plans typically provide coverage for scaling and root planing, viewing it as a medically necessary intervention. If the documented clinical findings do not sufficiently demonstrate the need for adjunctive antibiotic therapy beyond scaling and root planing, the insurer is likely to deny coverage for Arestin. A practical example involves a patient presenting with moderate periodontitis. If the dentist’s documentation indicates that scaling and root planing alone are expected to resolve the inflammation and reduce pocket depths, the claim for Arestin is likely to be rejected. The insurance company would argue that the more conservative and less expensive treatment option should be pursued first. Furthermore, systemic antibiotics, while presenting different administration methods and potential side effects, can also serve as alternatives. The choice between Arestin and systemic antibiotics often hinges on the severity and extent of the periodontal disease, as well as the patient’s overall health. Insurance companies may favor systemic antibiotics in certain cases due to their broader reach and potentially lower per-treatment cost.
The favorability of alternative treatments underscores a critical challenge in securing Arestin coverage: the need to convincingly demonstrate its added value. Dental providers must present compelling evidence justifying why Arestin is a more appropriate treatment option than the available alternatives, considering factors such as patient-specific circumstances, disease severity, and potential for improved outcomes. The absence of such justification strengthens the insurer’s preference for alternative treatments, leading to continued difficulties in obtaining reimbursement for Arestin. This understanding is essential for dental practices to effectively manage patient expectations and explore alternative payment options when insurance coverage is denied.
7. Bundled Procedure Codes
The practice of bundling dental procedure codes can significantly affect insurance coverage for Arestin. This system, wherein multiple services are combined into a single billing code, often obscures the individual cost and reimbursement potential of specific treatments like locally administered antibiotics. Understanding how these bundled codes operate is crucial in comprehending the reasons for denied or reduced insurance coverage for Arestin.
-
Inclusion within Comprehensive Periodontal Therapy Codes
Arestin treatment is frequently incorporated into broader periodontal therapy codes, such as those encompassing scaling and root planing with adjunctive local antimicrobial agents. If an insurance plan reimburses a single, bundled code for this comprehensive service, the individual value of Arestin may not be explicitly recognized or compensated. This bundling can effectively mask the cost of Arestin, leading to its implicit inclusion within the overall reimbursement rate for the more encompassing procedure. The reimbursement for the bundled code might not adequately reflect the added cost of Arestin, resulting in a financial disincentive for its use. A dental practice, for example, might decide against using Arestin due to the lack of additional reimbursement, opting instead for the standard scaling and root planing procedure.
-
Lack of Specificity in Code Descriptions
Dental procedure code descriptions, even when not explicitly bundled, may lack the specificity required to accurately represent Arestin administration. If the code description is vague, referring to “local delivery of antimicrobial agents” without identifying the specific agent used, insurers may apply a standardized reimbursement rate that undervalues the cost of Arestin. This lack of specificity can create ambiguity, allowing insurance companies to interpret the code in a manner that minimizes their financial obligation. The absence of a dedicated code precisely describing Arestin administration hinders accurate cost assessment and equitable reimbursement. An insurance company, faced with a claim using a generic code, may default to the lowest possible reimbursement rate for local antimicrobial delivery, regardless of the actual drug used.
-
Impact on Appeals Processes
Bundled procedure codes can complicate the appeals process when a claim for Arestin is initially denied. It becomes difficult to isolate the cost of Arestin and argue for its medical necessity when it is subsumed within a broader service. The insurer may contend that the overall reimbursement for the bundled procedure is adequate, even if it does not fully cover the cost of Arestin. This makes it challenging for dental providers to demonstrate the specific value and clinical necessity of Arestin, hindering their ability to successfully appeal the denial. The provider might find themselves having to justify the cost of the entire bundled procedure to get reimbursed for the Arestin, making for a lengthier more complex appeals process.
-
Influence on Provider Treatment Choices
The use of bundled procedure codes can indirectly influence a dental provider’s treatment choices. If reimbursement for a bundled code does not adequately cover the cost of Arestin, the provider may be less likely to recommend or administer the treatment, even if it is clinically indicated. This economic disincentive can compromise optimal patient care, as treatment decisions are influenced by financial considerations rather than solely by clinical needs. Over time, the practice may opt to not use Arestin on most or all patients. Therefore, the effects of code bundling may ultimately affect the types of treatments that can be performed at the dental office.
These considerations underscore how bundled procedure codes contribute to the challenges in securing insurance coverage for Arestin. The inclusion of Arestin within broader service codes, the lack of code specificity, the complications in appeals processes, and the influence on provider treatment choices all play a role in limiting reimbursement and access to this periodontal treatment. Addressing these issues requires greater transparency and precision in dental coding practices to ensure equitable compensation for valuable adjunctive therapies like Arestin.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the absence of consistent insurance coverage for Arestin, a locally administered antibiotic used in periodontal treatment.
Question 1: Why are insurance companies often reluctant to cover Arestin treatment?
Insurers frequently prioritize coverage for diagnostic and preventative services, placing less emphasis on adjunctive therapeutic interventions. Arestin, being an adjunct to scaling and root planing, may be deemed “non-essential” if the insurance provider believes scaling and root planing alone can achieve adequate results. Furthermore, concerns about cost-effectiveness and the availability of alternative treatments contribute to this reluctance.
Question 2: How do policy limitations affect Arestin coverage?
Dental insurance policies often specify the types of treatments covered, with many plans focusing on restorative procedures (fillings, crowns) rather than periodontal therapies. Policy exclusions may explicitly deny coverage for locally delivered antimicrobials unless specific criteria, such as documented failure of conventional treatments, are met. These limitations directly impact reimbursement for Arestin.
Question 3: What role does pre-approval play in determining Arestin coverage?
Many insurance plans require pre-approval (prior authorization) for specialized procedures, including adjunctive therapies like Arestin. Failure to obtain pre-approval, or submitting incomplete documentation, can result in claim denials. The pre-approval process ensures that the insurance company reviews the treatment plan and confirms its medical necessity before authorizing coverage.
Question 4: Why might Arestin be classified as “experimental” by some insurance providers?
The designation of “experimental” implies a lack of sufficient long-term clinical data demonstrating unequivocally superior efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared to traditional periodontal treatments. This classification prompts hesitancy among insurers, leading to restricted coverage. The absence of widespread consensus within the dental profession regarding Arestin’s optimal use can also contribute to this perception.
Question 5: How does the cost of Arestin influence insurance coverage decisions?
The cost-effectiveness debate significantly impacts insurance coverage decisions. If Arestin’s initial acquisition cost is higher compared to alternative treatments, and the long-term benefits are not significantly greater, insurers may favor the less expensive option. Budget impact analyses, which assess the overall financial consequences of covering Arestin, also influence coverage decisions.
Question 6: What impact do bundled procedure codes have on Arestin reimbursement?
Bundling occurs when multiple services are combined under a single billing code, potentially obscuring the individual cost of Arestin. The reimbursement for the bundled code might not adequately reflect the added expense of Arestin, leading to a financial disincentive for its use. Lack of specificity in code descriptions can also result in undervaluation of Arestin’s cost.
In summary, the lack of consistent insurance coverage for Arestin stems from policy limitations, pre-approval requirements, perceptions of Arestin as “experimental,” cost considerations, inadequate documentation, the favorability of alternative treatments, and the effects of bundled procedure codes.
The following section will discuss alternative financial options available to patients seeking Arestin treatment, including payment plans and financing options.
Navigating Insurance Coverage for Arestin
Given the challenges associated with securing insurance reimbursement, several strategic approaches can improve the likelihood of coverage for Arestin or mitigate out-of-pocket expenses.
Tip 1: Verify Policy Specifics Before Treatment Before initiating Arestin therapy, contact the insurance provider directly to confirm coverage details. Inquire about specific exclusions, pre-approval requirements, and documentation needed for claim submission. This proactive approach minimizes surprises and allows for informed financial planning.
Tip 2: Secure Pre-Authorization with Comprehensive Documentation When pre-authorization is required, meticulously prepare all necessary documentation. This includes detailed periodontal charting, current radiographs, and a compelling narrative explaining the medical necessity of Arestin. Highlighting previous treatment failures and the specific benefits of Arestin for the patient’s condition strengthens the request.
Tip 3: Advocate for Clear and Specific Coding Ensure that dental claims use the most accurate and specific procedure codes available. If a bundled code is used, request that the provider itemize the costs, clearly distinguishing the charge for Arestin. This transparency facilitates a more accurate assessment of the treatment’s value.
Tip 4: Document and Appeal Denials If a claim is denied, carefully review the explanation provided by the insurance company. Identify the reasons for denial and gather additional documentation to support an appeal. Persistence and a well-documented case can sometimes reverse initial decisions.
Tip 5: Explore Alternative Payment Options When insurance coverage is unavailable or insufficient, investigate alternative payment options. These include payment plans offered by the dental practice, third-party financing programs designed for healthcare expenses, and health savings accounts (HSAs) or flexible spending accounts (FSAs).
Tip 6: Request a Written Treatment Plan A comprehensive written treatment plan outlining the necessity of Arestin, its expected benefits, and alternative treatment options can aid in understanding and justifying the proposed therapy. Share this plan with the insurance provider for clarity.
Tip 7: Comparison of “Out of Network” versus “In Network” Costs Discuss with dental providers the potential cost differences between using insurance in-network versus utilizing insurance benefits out-of-network. Understand the ramifications of the decision and the potential cost difference if Arestin is not covered either way.
The successful navigation of insurance challenges related to Arestin often depends on a combination of proactive communication, meticulous documentation, and a thorough understanding of policy specifics. Utilizing these strategies can improve the likelihood of coverage or mitigate financial burdens.
The following section will summarize and conclude the information presented.
Understanding the Barriers to Arestin Coverage
The preceding analysis has illuminated the multifaceted reasons underlying the lack of consistent insurance reimbursement for Arestin. These include policy limitations, pre-approval complexities, categorization as an experimental treatment, cost-effectiveness concerns, insufficient documentation, preferences for alternative therapies, and the effects of bundled procedure codes. Each factor contributes to the difficulties encountered by patients and dental providers when seeking coverage for this adjunctive periodontal treatment.
The intricacies of dental insurance policies and the variable interpretations of medical necessity necessitate a proactive and informed approach. While systemic changes in insurance coverage for adjunctive periodontal therapies are warranted, patients and practitioners must navigate the existing landscape through diligent documentation, clear communication, and exploration of alternative financial solutions. Continued advocacy for equitable coverage policies remains essential to ensure optimal patient access to necessary periodontal care.
