Next Article in Journal
Charting the Future of Oral Health: A Bibliometric Exploration of Quality-of-Life Research in Dentistry
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Urban versus Industry Normative Values of Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT™)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 21
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph21030248
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Estimation of Oral Disease Burden among Older Adults in LTC: A Scoping Review

by
Bathsheba Turton
1,*,
Gheed Alqunaybit
1,
Amrita Tembhe
1,
Alaa Qari
2,
Kadambari Rawal
1,
Ernest Mandel
3,
Joseph Calabrese
1 and
Michelle Henshaw
1
1
Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA 02118, USA
2
Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 02131, Saudi Arabia
3
Hebrew Seniorlife, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02131, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(3), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030248
Submission received: 12 January 2024 / Revised: 11 February 2024 / Accepted: 15 February 2024 / Published: 21 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Approaches to Supporting Oral Health among Older Adults in Long-Term Care)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Oral health is an essential part of healthy aging and very little data exists around the disease burden for older adults in a long-term care setting. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the disease burden of dental caries, periodontal disease, and tooth loss among older adults in Long-Term Care (LTC). This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A detailed strategy was used to conduct a comprehensive search of electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS). The Rayyan AI platform was used to screen abstracts for assessment by one of five co-investigators. Results indicate that only one in three might have a functional dentition upon entry into LTC, and among those who are dentate, most might expect to develop at least one new coronal and one new root caries lesion each year. There is a need to better document the disease experiences of this group to tailor approaches to care that might reduce the avoidable suffering as a result of dental caries and periodontal disease.

1. Introduction

Oral health is an essential part of healthy aging and oral disease among the aging global population, and has led to an estimated 28.02% increase in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) for older adults between 1990 and 2010 [1]. Recent data from a nationally representative sample in the United States (US) suggest that one in six community dwelling older adults have untreated dental caries [2]. It is thought that those who live in Long-Term Care (LTC) facilities may have more severe experiences, although not a lot of data exist. Currently, in the US, 1.5 million older adults live in Long-Term Care (LTC). This number is increasing. LTC residents are largely female (68%), non-white Hispanic (75%), 65+ years old (84%), and Medicaid recipients (72%) [3]. It is estimated that their need for dental care is also growing, since almost 70% of older adults and 60% of nursing home residents are dentate.
The most prevalent oral diseases are dental caries and periodontal disease, which are both preventable Non-Communicable Diseases driven by socio-behavioral factors. In addition, these conditions are mediated by complex bacterial biofilm interactions. With regard to older adults, there are features, such as a shift in their diet towards refined carbohydrates, complex medical conditions, polypharmacy, and diminishing dexterity for performing oral hygiene practices, which contribute to increases in the rate of oral disease activity. In the caries process, the ecology of the dental biofilm system is driven by an individual’s diet and oral hygiene practices which, in turn, are driven by social, biological, and structural determinants [4].
Yet, the burden of both diseases remains persistent and progressive among marginalized communities such as those in LTC. This scoping review aimed to estimate the disease burden of dental caries (coronal and root carious lesions), periodontal disease, and tooth loss among older adults in LTC.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review was conducted using a methodology consistent with PRISMA_ScR guidelines for scoping reviews and their protocol. The protocol has been previously published in the open science framework (OSF) [5]. A detailed search strategy was developed to generate articles from three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source. The search terms for PubMed were built first and then adapted for the other search platforms:
PubMed Search terms: (((“Aged”[Mesh] OR “older adult*”[tw] OR “the elderly”[tw] OR “elderly adult*”[tw] OR “frail adults”[tw] OR elderly[tw] OR frailty[tw]) AND (“Mouth Diseases”[Mesh] OR “Tooth Diseases”[Mesh] OR “mouth disease*”[tw] OR “oral disease*”[tw] OR “periodontal disease*”[tw])) AND ((“long-term care”[mesh] OR (“long term”[tw] AND (care[tw] OR facilit*[tw] OR home*[tw] OR support[tw]))) OR (Mouthwashes[Mesh] OR “Cariogenic Agents”[Mesh] OR “Cariostatic Agents”[Mesh] OR Dentifrices[Mesh] OR mouthwash[tw] OR “mouth rinse”[tw] OR fluoride[tw] OR betadine OR “topical fluoride”[tw] OR “sodium fluoride”[tw] OR “tin fluoride”[tw] OR “phosphate fluoride”[tw] OR toothpaste OR “artificial saliva”[tw] OR “saliva substitute”[tw]))) NOT (“Infant”[Mesh] OR “Child”[Mesh] OR “Birth Cohort”[Mesh] OR “Young Adult”[Mesh] OR “Adolescent”[Mesh] OR child* OR “young adult” OR teenager OR teen OR kid OR baby OR infant) AND (1985:2022[pdat]).
In addition to structured searching, manual searching was used to identify any additional articles based on authorship or expert knowledge of the investigative team (6 out of 8 are gerontologists). The search terms have been previously published in OSF [5].

2.1. Study Selection

Abstracts were screened using the Ryyan platform [6] by the lead investigator for initial consideration in the scoping review. Then, full text versions of screened articles were reviewed by the investigative team for inclusion and data synthesis. The reason for exclusion and the stage at which the article was excluded were reported. Table 1 presents the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.2. Data Synthesis

Six calibrated investigators extracted data points using an electronic form (Microsoft Forms; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The form included sections on: paper characteristics, description of data points for relevant disease indicators, such as coronal caries, root caries, missing teeth, periodontal disease, and space for reviewers to comment on any study features such as limitations or unique features of study design. For each condition of interest, notes were made on the types of indices used and prevalence measures, severity, and incidence were recorded in the online form.

2.3. Calibration Process

A training video was developed by the first author, discussing the problems encountered by older adults, complexity of the problem, the objectives of the review, and the extraction process using the form. Other videos discussed the definitions of oral diseases and a standard way of extracting them from papers, and discussed the initial review conducted by the team for calibration. Each investigator reviewed 10 papers as part of a pair and when there was sufficient consistency between the pair, the investigator evaluated papers independently (A total of 50 of 172 papers were reviewed by two investigators).

2.4. Synthesis of Results

Summary statistics were prepared to describe the types of studies included and among which populations. Following this, data on the disease burden and disease incidence were collated and summarized. Data on means and standard deviations were aggregated, and then the Cochrane formula was used to provide a summary measure wherever possible [7]. Increment or incidence data were presented, then values were standardized to indicate the increment or incidence per year. Where data from both the community and Long-Term Care facilities were presented, only the data from the LTC setting were presented in the summary tables.

3. Results

Figure 1 presents data on the papers included in the scoping review. Twenty-nine papers had data on tooth loss, 26 on coronal dental caries, 26 on root caries, and 21 on periodontal disease.
Data presented on missing teeth suggest that most older adults in Long-Term Careare missing more than 10 teeth. Two papers, one out of India [8] and another out of Sweeden [9], found older adults in LTC had a mean of less than ten teeth missing (Table 2). Overall, approximately one in three were edentulous, and one in three might have a functional dentition (more than 20 teeth). Data on the incidence of tooth loss among older adults in Long-Term Care was not present. Papers using community-dwelling samples suggest that between 0.1 and 0.5 teeth per person per year might be lost among 5–10% of the population [10,11,12,13,14,15].
Data suggest that the mean number of untreated coronal caries lesions present among older adults in LTC was between one and four teeth (Table 3). The mean number of Decayed Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) in most papers exceeded 20 teeth. The incidence of new lesions was around two teeth per year, and one paper suggested that 17.7% of eligible surfaces might develop carious lesions (attack rate).
Data on root carious lesions were presented using a variety of different indices: the root caries index, Nyvad modified criteria, Fejerskov et al.’s criteria, and ICDAS II (Table 4). There was a large variation in the number of teeth with untreated root carious lesions. Around 2/3 of the individuals in each sample had one or more untreated lesion(s), and most papers suggested that more than two teeth per individual might be involved. Data on disease progression suggests that between 10% and 20% of root lesions might progress yearly. In addition, data suggest that older adults in LTC might develop at least one new root carious lesion per year.
Most papers presented data on worst pocket depth, most severe Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need (CPITN) score, or worst attachment loss (Table 5). When all data are considered, around two in five might be expected to have one or more teeth with pocket depths in the 4–6 mm range (equivalent to CPITN code 3) or worse, and one in five might be expected to have one or more pockets that are deeper than 6 mm. Community-based data suggest that one in five pockets progress yearly among one in ten individuals [13,55,56].

4. Discussion

This scoping review aimed to synthesize data from the existing literature to better understand the disease burden among older adults in LTC settings. There was a lack of consistency in reporting root caries and periodontal disease, making results among papers challenging to compare. The results suggest that over two-thirds of older adults present in LTC without a functional dentition and with many active and untreated coronal and root carious lesions. Data on periodontal conditions are less clear due to heterogenicity in data reported; potentially, one in five older adults in LTC might benefit from intensive periodontal treatments to manage deep periodontal pockets. These findings are consistent with global reports that suggest that older adults are entering the later stages of life with some teeth remaining [67].
Accessing robust epidemiological data for older adults in LTC is challenging, and this scoping review marks the beginning of a program of work to redesign oral health care for older adults in LTC in a US context. In addition, representative sampling is challenging due to difficulties ranging from logistical limitations associated with undergoing detailed dental examinations to gaining consent from those who might be cognitively impaired. These limitations mean that those with a more severe disease experience may be more likely to be excluded from sampling, and as such, reports may underestimate the disease burden among this population.
This scoping review had limitations where the search terms may have missed some papers with relevant data. Some of those relevant papers were picked up by manual searching. However, valuable datasets may likely have been excluded from consideration. While this scoping review does not precisely estimate disease experience, it does confirm that the disease experience is more severe than that reported for community-dwelling older adults [68].
The synthesized data suggest some consistencies in the cross-sectional pattern of disease whereby around 1/3 appear to be edentulous, 1/3 with less than 20 teeth (but not edentulous), and 1/3 with a functional dentition (>21 teeth). It seems that untreated caries lesions (coronal or root surfaces) are not present among all dentate residents of LTC but the distribution is not well defined, except in the NZ study where 2/3 of dentate adults had untreated lesions on coronal portions of teeth and 1/3 had untreated lesions on root caries [28]. Other studies with comparable data appear to share similar estimates [23,34,40,53]. While these patterns are described at a cross-sectional level, the disease progression is less well understood. For example, there are estimates of the mean number of new carious lesions. Still, there does not appear to be consistent data on the proportion of the population with disease progression while in LTC. Understanding the profile of disease incidence at a population level could help better design more efficient care pathways, thereby increasing access to care for the proportion of the population that most needs active intervention.
The current care pathway is inadequate for delivering dental care for LTC residents. The barriers to treatment for older adults, particularly those in LTC, include difficulty accessing transportation to the dental office and relying on caregivers to recognize their need for routine care [69]. The ideal approach would be to address oral disease at earlier stages of disease and while individuals possess greater levels of independence. In the context of LTC, the dental care delivery system is not well-positioned to address the needs of older adults. The workforce has few gerontologists, older adults often lack dental insurance, and the payment structure in the private practice model does not account for older adults who have multifaceted medical histories, take longer to treat, and have complex clinical manifestations. A preventive approach would provide an opportunity to shift away from the presently nonviable dentist-centric approach and reduce the need for unexpected surgical interventions (dental emergency) that can disrupt the lives of those in LTC.
Designing a care pathway that caters to the needs of the older adults in the LTC population requires consistent and reliable data and along with that robust health surveillance systems. Dental caries and periodontal disease conditions are not equitably distributed across the population; rather they exhibit a skewed profile where most disease occurs among a subgroup of individuals. What is unclear from the data is what proportion are likely to have active caries or have active periodontal disease. This highlights the need to document better the natural history of oral disease and its distribution among older adults in LTC. Further, the findings of this scoping review highlight the need to document disease experience using standardized approaches to recording data, particularly regarding root caries and periodontal disease, on which very few comparable studies exist. One example of this type of contention is around the definition of ‘periodontal disease’ in this population who are likely to have both gingival pockets and attachment loss. Studies only looking at combined attachment loss (distance from the cementoenamel junction to the bottom of the pocket) are likely to overestimate the presence of active periodontal disease [65,66] as a proportion of the attachment loss might be due to recession that might be an expected part of normal aging rather than an actively inflamed gingival pocket [70]. By contrast, using only indicator teeth to screen for the presence of bony defects in periodontal supporting tissues using the CPITN may underestimate the level of disease present [28].
While there are efforts to standardize data collection for older adults when they enter LTC, [70] these screening tools have yet to be linked to care plans that might predictably maintain the highest attainable state of oral health. Such an understanding might help to inform a population-level approach to preventing suffering that occurs as a result of preventable oral disease.
Recent literature on interventions has heavily focused on plaque removal and on training caregiving staff to perform better oral hygiene care or undertake dental screening procedures [71,72]. However, there are varying results due to the challenges of managing long-term care facilities where staff turnover is high and the demands on caregiver time are great [73]. Very few interventions have demonstrated disease prevention regarding caries increment or management of periodontal pocket progression. Managing biofilm-mediated diseases from a preventive paradigm in LTC settings is complex because the conditions are juxtaposed against the unique social and functional structure of institutionalized living, where specific power dynamics among staff and between staff and residents make it difficult to address the socio-behavioral drivers of the disease [74]. It is well documented that when an individual loses autonomy and has a diminished ability to set personal goals, then health outcomes are compromised, including increases in oral disease [75]. This is especially true for LTC residents, where increased frailty and dependence can trigger declining oral health [76]. Therefore, there is a tremendous need for novel and sustainable oral health interventions in LTC.

5. Conclusions

This scoping review brings aggregated reported data on the oral health of older adults in long-term care. There appears to be some consistency in the present disease patterns. Only one in three might have a functional dentition upon entry into LTC, and among those who are dentate, most of them might expect to develop at least one new coronal and one new root caries lesion each year. There is a need to document the disease experiences of this group better to tailor approaches to care that might reduce the avoidable suffering as a result of dental caries and periodontal disease.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology B.T. and M.H.; validation B.T., M.H., K.R., A.T., G.A. and A.Q.; formal analysis, data curation and generation B.T., A.T., G.A., A.Q., K.R. and M.H.; writing—original draft preparation—B.T.; writing—review and editing. K.R., A.T., G.A., A.Q., E.M., J.C. and M.H.; project administration, B.T., M.H. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by NIH-NIDCR (R21 DE032137).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Further data supporting reported results can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6FVE5; accessed on 19 February 2023.

Acknowledgments

Carly Schanock at the Boston Alumni Medical Library assisted in setting the search terms and collating papers for inclusion in this scoping review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Patel, J.; Wallace, J.; Doshi, M.; Gadanya, M.; Yahya, I.B.; Roseman, J.; Srisilapanan, P. Oral health for healthy ageing. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021, 2, e521–e527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Griffin, S.O.; Griffin, P.M.; Li, C.H.; Bailey, W.D.; Brunson, D.; Jones, J.A. Changes in older adults’ oral health and disparities: 1999 to 2004 and 2011 to 2016. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2019, 7, 1152–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Calabrese, J.M.; Rawal, K. Demographics and Oral Health Care Utilization for Older Adults. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2021, 65, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Brocklehurst, P.R.; Baker, S.R.; Langley, J. Context and the evidence-based paradigm: The potential for participatory research and systems thinking in oral health. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2021, 49, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Turton, B.; Henshaw, M.; Rawal, K.; Tembhe, A.; Alqunaybit, G.; Qari, A.; Calabrese, J. Prevention of Oral Disease Among Older Adults in Long Term Care. Open Science Framework. 2023. Available online: https://osf.io/6fve5/?view_only=b824a9a1881d4382b2e3bdb2e6abe610 (accessed on 8 June 2023).
  6. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A.; Chalmers, T.; Smith, H. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 2010–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hozo, S.P.; Djulbegovic, B.; Hozo, I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2005, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Agrawal, R.; Gautam, N.R.; Kumar, P.M.; Kadhiresan, R.; Saxena, V.; Jain, S. Assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease status among elderly residing in old age homes of Madhya Pradesh. J. Int. Oral Health 2015, 7, 57. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ericson, D.; Carlsson, P.; Gabre, P.; Wårdh, I.; Zimmerman, M.; Sjögren, P. Effect of a single application of silver diamine fluoride on root caries after 12 months in institutionalised older adults—A randomised clinical trial. Gerodontology 2023, 40, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hunt, R.J.; Eldredge, J.B.; Beck, J.D. Effect of residence in a fluoridated community on the incidence of coronal and root caries in an older adult population. J. Public Health Dent. 1989, 49, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nevalainen, M.J.; Närhi, T.O.; Ainamo, A. A 5-year follow-up study on the prosthetic rehabilitation of the elderly in Helsinki, Finland. J. Oral Rehabil. 2004, 31, 647–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ajwani, S.; Ainamo, A. Periodontal conditions among the old elderly: Five-year longitudinal study. Spec. Care Dent. 2001, 21, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yoshihara, A.; Watanabe, R.; Hanada, N.; Miyazaki, H. A longitudinal study of the relationship between diet intake and dental caries and periodontal disease in elderly Japanese subjects. Gerodontology 2009, 26, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Matsuyama, Y.; Aida, J.; Tsuboya, T.; Hikichi, H.; Kondo, K.; Kawachi, I.; Osaka, K. Are lowered socioeconomic circumstances causally related to tooth loss? A natural experiment involving the 2011 great East Japan earthquake. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 1, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gülcan, F.; Nasir, E.; Ekbäck, G.; Ordell, S.; Åstrøm, A.N. Change in Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP) with increasing age: Testing the evaluative properties of the OIDP frequency inventory using prospective data from Norway and Sweden. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Stuck, A.E.; Chappuis, C.; Flury, H.; Lang, N.P. Dental treatment needs in an elderly population referred to a geriatric hospital in Switzerland. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1989, 17, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chalmers, J.M.; Carter, K.D.; Fuss, J.M.; Spencer, A.J.; Hodge, C.P. Caries experience in existing and new nursing home residents in Adelaide, Australia. Gerodontology 2002, 19, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Chalmers, J.M.; Carter, K.D.; Spencer, A.J. Caries incidence and increments in community-living older adults with and without dementia. Gerodontology 2002, 19, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chalmers, J.M.; Hodge, C.; Fuss, J.M.; Spencer, A.J.; Carter, K.D. The prevalence and experience of oral diseases in Adelaide nursing home residents. Aust. Dent. J. 2002, 47, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fure, S.; Zickert, I. Incidence of tooth loss and dental caries in 60-, 70-and 80-year-old Swedish individuals. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1997, 25, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wyatt, C.C.; MacEntee, M.I. Caries management for institutionalized elders using fluoride and chlorhexidine mouthrinses. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2004, 32, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chalmers, J.M.; Carter, K.D.; Spencer, A.J. Caries incidence and increments in Adelaide nursing home residents. Spec. Care Dent. 2005, 25, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Adam, H.; Preston, A.J. The oral health of individuals with dementia in nursing homes. Gerodontology 2006, 23, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tramini, P.; Montal, S.; Valcarcel, J. Tooth loss and associated factors in long-term institutionalized elderly patients. Gerodontology 2007, 24, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Arpin, S.; Brodeur, J.M.; Corbeil, P. Dental caries, problems perceived and use of services among institutionalized elderly in 3 regions of Quebec, Canada. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 74, 9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Philip, P.; Rogers, C.; Kruger, E.; Tennant, M. Caries experience of institutionalized elderly and its association with dementia and functional status. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2012, 10, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zenthöfer, A.; Rammelsberg, P.; Cabrera, T.; Schröder, J.; Hassel, A.J. Determinants of oral health-related quality of life of the institutionalized elderly. Psychogeriatrics 2014, 14, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. CBG Health Research. Our Older People’s Oral Health. Key Findings of the 2012 New Zealand Older People’s Oral Health Survey; CBG Health Research: Auckland, New Zealand, 2015; ISBN 978-0-473-34655-3. Available online: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/our-older-peoples-oral-health-2012-nz-older-peoples-oral-health-survey-feb16.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2024).
  29. Pham, T.A.; Nguyen, T.Q. Dental and periodontal problems of elderly people in Vietnamese nursing homes. Gerodontology 2018, 35, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Saarela, R.K.; Savikko, N.M.; Soini, H.; Muurinen, S.; Suominen, M.H.; Kautiainen, H.; Pitkala, K.H. Burden of oral symptoms and health-related quality of life in long-term care settings in Helsinki, Finland. J. Nutr Health Aging 2019, 23, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chiesi, F.; Grazzini, M.; Innocenti, M.; Giammarco, B.; Simoncini, E.; Garamella, G.; Zanobini, P.; Perra, C.; Baggiani, L.; Lorini, C.; et al. Older people living in nursing homes: An oral health screening survey in Florence, Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Girestam Croonquist, C.; Dalum, J.; Skott, P.; Sjögren, P.; Wårdh, I.; Morén, E. Effects of domiciliary professional oral care for care-dependent elderly in nursing homes–oral hygiene, gingival bleeding, root caries and nursing staff’s oral health knowledge and attitudes. Clin. Interv. Aging 2020, 6, 1305–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tanji, F.; Komiyama, T.; Ohi, T.; Hattori, Y.; Watanabe, M.; Lu, Y.; Tsuji, I. The association between number of remaining teeth and maintenance of successful aging in Japanese older people: A 9-year longitudinal study. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2020, 252, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bianco, A.; Mazzea, S.; Fortunato, L.; Giudice, A.; Papadopoli, R.; Nobile, C.G.; Pavia, M. Oral health status and the impact on oral health-related quality of life among the institutionalized elderly population: A cross-sectional study in an area of southern Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tokumoto, K.; Kimura-Ono, A.; Mino, T.; Osaka, S.; Numoto, K.; Koyama, E.; Kurosaki, Y.; Nakagawa, S.; Amano, Y.; Nguyen, H.T.; et al. Risk factors for root caries annual incidence and progression among older people requiring nursing care: A one-year prospective cohort study. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2022, 66, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. MacEntee, M.I.; Silver, J.G.; Gibson, G.; Weiss, R. Oral health in a long-term care institution equipped with a dental service. Community Dent. Oral Epidemol. 1985, 13, 260–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Vigild, M. Dental caries and the need for treatment among institutionalized elderly. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1989, 17, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jones, J.A.; Lavallee, N.; Alman, J.; Sinclair, C.; Garcia, R.I. Caries incidence in patients with dementia. Gerodontology 1993, 10, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. MacEntee, M.I.; Clark, D.C.; Glick, N. Predictors of caries in old age. Gerodontology 1993, 10, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wyatt, C.C. Elderly Canadians residing in long-term care hospitals: Part II. Dental caries status. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2002, 1, 359–363. [Google Scholar]
  41. McMillan, A.S.; Wong, M.C.; Lo, E.C.; Allen, P.F. The impact of oral disease among the institutionalized and non-institutionalized elderly in Hong Kong. J. Oral Rehabil. 2003, 30, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vilstrup, L.; Holm-Pedersen, P.; Mortensen, E.L.; Avlund, K. Dental status and dental caries in 85-year-old Danes. Gerodontology 2007, 24, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gluhak, C.; Arnetzl, G.V.; Kirmeier, R.; Jakse, N.; Arnetzl, G. Oral status among seniors in nine nursing homes in Styria, Austria. Gerodontology 2010, 27, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, X.; Shuman, S.K.; Hodges, J.S.; Gatewood, L.C.; Xu, J. Patterns of tooth loss in older adults with and without dementia: A retrospective study based on a Minnesota cohort. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2010, 58, 2300–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ellefsen, B.S.; Morse, D.E.; Waldemar, G.; Holm-Pedersen, P. Indicators for root caries in Danish persons with recently diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. Gerodontology 2012, 29, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Silva, M.; Hopcraft, M.; Morgan, M. Dental caries in Victorian nursing homes. Aust. Dent. J. 2014, 59, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bilder, L.; Yavnai, N.; Zini, A. Oral health status among long-term hospitalized adults: A cross-sectional study. PeerJ 2014, 10, e423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Holtzman, J.S.; Kohanchi, D.; Biren-Fetz, J.; Fontana, M.; Ramchandani, M.; Osann, K.; Hallajian, L.; Mansour, S.; Nabelsi, T.; Chung, N.E.; et al. Detection and proportion of very early dental caries in independent living older adults. Lasers Surg. Med. 2015, 47, 683–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhang, W.; McGrath, C.; Lo, E.C.; Li, J.Y. Silver diamine fluoride and education to prevent and arrest root caries among community-dwelling elders. Caries Res. 2013, 1, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Berg, R.; Berkey, D.; Tang, J.M.; Baine, C.; Altman, D.S. Oral health status of older adults in Arizona: Results from the Arizona Elder Study. Spec. Care Dent. 2000, 20, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tan, H.P.; Lo, E.C.; Dyson, J.E.; Luo, Y.; Corbet, E.F. A randomized trial on root caries prevention in elders. J. Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 1086–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ekstrand, K.R.; Poulsen, J.E.; Hede, B.; Twetman, S.; Qvist, V.; Ellwood, R.P. A randomized clinical trial of the anti-caries efficacy of 5000 compared to 1,450 ppm fluoridated toothpaste on root caries lesions in elderly disabled nursing home residents. Caries Res. 2013, 47, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J.; Leung, K.C.; Chu, C.H.; Lo, E.C. Risk indicators for root caries in older adults using long-term social care facilities in Hong Kong. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2020, 48, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Patel, R.; Fitzgerald, R.; Warburton, F.; Robertson, C.; Pitts, N.B.; Gallagher, J.E. Refocusing dental care: A risk-based preventative oral health program for dentate older people in UK care homes. Gerodontology 2022, 39, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Beck, J.D.; Koch, G.G.; Offenbacher, S. Incidence of attachment loss over 3 years in older adults—New and progressing lesions. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1995, 23, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Qian, F.; Levy, S.M.; Warren, J.J.; Hand, J.S. Incidence of periodontal attachment loss over 8 to 10 years among Iowa elders aged 71+ at baseline. J. Public Health Dent. 2007, 67, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ogawa, H.; Yoshihara, A.; Hirotomi, T.; Ando, Y.; Miyazaki, H. Risk factors for periodontal disease progression among elderly people. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29, 592–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Levy, S.M.; Warren, J.J.; Chowdhury, J.; DeBus, B.; Watkins, C.A.; Cowen, H.J.; Kirchner, H.L.; Hand, J.S. The prevalence of periodontal disease measures in elderly adults, aged 79 and older. Spec. Care Dent. 2003, 23, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mack, F.; Mojon, P.; Budtz-Jørgensen, E.; Kocher, T.; Splieth, C.; Schwahn, C.; Bernhardt, O.; Gesch, D.; Kordaß, B.; John, U.; et al. Caries and periodontal disease of the elderly in Pomerania, Germany: Results of the Study of Health in Pomerania. Gerodontology 2004, 21, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Orwoll, E.S.; Chan, B.K.; Lambert, L.C.; Marshall, L.M.; Lewis, C.; Phipps, K.R. Sex steroids, periodontal health, and tooth loss in older men. J. Dent. Res. 2009, 88, 704–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Siukosaari, P.; Ajwani, S.; Ainamo, A.; Wolf, J.; Närhi, T. Periodontal health status in the elderly with different levels of education: A 5-year follow-up study. Gerodontology 2012, 29, e170–e178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sánchez-García, S.; Reyes-Morales, H.; Juárez-Cedillo, T.; Espinel-Bermúdez, C.; Solórzano-Santos, F.; García-Peña, C. A prediction model for root caries in an elderly population. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2011, 39, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Syrjälä, A.M.; Ylöstalo, P.; Ruoppi, P.; Komulainen, K.; Hartikainen, S.; Sulkava, R.; Knuuttila, M. Dementia and oral health among subjects aged 75 years or older. Gerodontology 2012, 29, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gaio, E.J.; Haas, A.N.; Carrard, V.C.; Oppermann, R.V.; Albandar, J.; Susin, C. Oral health status in elders from South Brazil: A population-based study. Gerodontology 2012, 29, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Kimble, R.; McLellan, G.; Lennon, L.T.; Papacosta, A.O.; Weyant, R.J.; Kapila, Y.; Mathers, J.C.; Wannamathee, S.G.; Whincup, P.H.; Ramsay, S.E. Association between oral health markers and decline in muscle strength and physical performance in later life: Longitudinal analyses of two prospective cohorts from the UK and the USA. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022, 3, e777–e788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kotronia, E.; Brown, H.; Papacosta, O.; Lennon, L.T.; Weyant, R.J.; Whincup, P.H.; Wannamethee, S.G.; Ramsay, S.E. Oral health problems and risk of incident disability in two studies of older adults in the United Kingdom and the United States. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2022, 70, 2080–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kassebaum, N.J.; Bernabé, E.; Dahiya, M.; Bhandari, B.; Murray, C.J.; Marcenes, W. Global burden of severe tooth loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 20S–28S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, H.; Kim, D.; Jung, A.; Chae, W. Ethnicity, social, and clinical risk factors to tooth loss among older adults in the US, NHANES 2011–2018. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Walgama, K.; Wides, C.; Kottek, A.; Mertz, E. The Impact of Federal and State Policy on Oral Health Care Delivery in Long-Term Care Settings. J. Health Care Poor Underserved 2018, 29, 1570–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ebersole, J.L.; Graves, C.L.; Gonzalez, O.A.; Dawson, D.; Morford, L.A.; Huja, P.E.; Hartsfield, J.K., Jr.; Huja, S.S.; Pandruvada, S.; Wallet, S.M. Aging, inflammation, immunity and periodontal disease. Periodontology 2016, 72, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Coker, E.; Ploeg, J.; Kaasalainen, S. The effect of programs to improve oral hygiene outcomes for older residents in long-term care: A systematic review. Res. Gerontol. Nurs. 2014, 7, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Weening-Verbree, L.; Huisman-de Waal, G.; Van Dusseldorp, L.; van Achterberg, T.; Schoonhoven, L. Oral health care in older people in long term care facilities: A systematic review of implementation strategies. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2013, 50, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Willumsen, T.; Karlsen, L.; Næss, R.; Bjørntvedt, S. Are the barriers to good oral hygiene in nursing homes within the nurses or the patients? Gerodontology 2012, 29, e748–e755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Baker, S.R. Editorial ‘No simple solutions, no single ingredient’: Systems orientated approaches for addressing Wicked Problems in population oral health. Community Dent. Health 2019, 36, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  75. Gibson, L.B.; Blake, M.; Baker, S. Inequalities in oral health: The role of sociology. Community Dent. Health 2016, 33, 156–160. [Google Scholar]
  76. Niesten, D.; Witter, D.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Creugers, N.H. Oral health care behavior and frailty-related factors in a care-dependent older population. J. Dent. 2017, 61, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 21 00248 g001
Figure 1. Description of included papers in the scoping review. Some papers were included in more than one disease category, while others inform alternative study questions outside the scope of the present paper. * Papers may have been excluded for more than one reason. ** 19 papers were included in the broader scoping review but not included in the present report. Underlined text represents subtotal counts.
Figure 1. Description of included papers in the scoping review. Some papers were included in more than one disease category, while others inform alternative study questions outside the scope of the present paper. * Papers may have been excluded for more than one reason. ** 19 papers were included in the broader scoping review but not included in the present report. Underlined text represents subtotal counts.
Ijerph 21 00248 g001
Table 1. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of papers.
Table 1. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of papers.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
PopulationOlder adults in long-term care facilities and community settings and in any country.Younger population age groups (<65 years old)
LanguageEnglishNon-English language papers
InterventionsThose include, but are not limited to, Fluoride Varnish, Mouth rinses, Silver Diamine fluoride, high fluoride toothpasteInterventions occurring with the wrong population.
Publication statusPublished literature searchable by PubMed, Embase, or Dentistry and oral sciences sources.Not available online using search engines or hand searches
Study designsCross-sectional surveys, cohort studies, experimental studiesQualitative studies, review articles, articles without original data
Outcome measuresCaries incidence, incidence of tooth loss (incidence), periodontal disease incidence, oral symptoms, periodontal diseasesIf there is an absence of clinical measures on caries, periodontal disease, tooth loss, or oral symptoms. Studies where the clinical outcome is the plaque score and there are no other clinical outcome measures meeting our criteria will be excluded.
DatesAny date if the electronic version of the paper is availableAll dates included
Table 2. Tooth loss and edentulism among older adults in long term care.
Table 2. Tooth loss and edentulism among older adults in long term care.
AuthorCountryPrevalence of EdentulismMean Number of Missing TeethProportion with >20 TeethIncidence of Tooth Loss
Stuck et al., 1989 [16]Switzerland58.90%
Hunt et al., 1995 [10] *USA 0.7 (SD2.0) over 18 m; 0.5/year
Chalmers et al., 2002 [17]Australia66%18.9 (no SD)
Chalmers et al., 2002 [18]Australia 19.3 (SD 7.4)
Chalmers et al., 2002 [19]Australiaexcluded10.4 (No SD) 0.4/year
Fure, 2003 [20] *Sweden27%21.2 (SD 6.6) 2.5 (SD 3.4) over 5 years; 0.5/year
Wyatt & MacEntee, 2004 [21]Canada 14.9 (SD 6.9) 0.1 teeth per year
Nevalainen et al., 2004 [11] *Finland31%16.2 (SD 8.0) 1% year became edentulous
Ajwani & Ainamo, 2004 [12] *Finland 12.2 (SD 7.7) 0.9 teeth over 5 years; 0.2 teeth per year
Chalmers et al., 2005 [22]Australia63.10%
Adam et al., 2006 [23]UK65.90%27.8 (SD 7.0)
Tramini et al., 2007 [24]France26.90% 33.6%
Arpin S et al., 2008 [25]Canada 19.1 (SD 7.8)
Yoshihara et al., 2008 [13] *Japan 19.3 (SD 8.6) 1.7 (SD 2.2) over 6 years; 0.3 teeth lost per year
Philip P et al., 2012 [26]Australia 17.7 (SD 7.2)
Zenthöfer et al., 2014 [27]Germany39.40%20.3 (SD 8.9)
Agrawal et al., 2015 [8]India37.90%6.7 (SD 5.2)
Tompson et. al., 2015 [28]NZ56.6%15.6 (SD 14.7) **35.1% **
Matsuyama et al., 2016 [14] *Japan8% 8.2% lost ≥ 1 tooth over 3 years (2.7%/year)
Gülcan et al., 2017 [15] *Norway and Sweden 5.5% lost one or more teeth over 5 years (1.1%/year)
Pham and Nguyen, 2018 [29]Vietnam9.90%13.8 (SD 7.4) **52.1%
Saarela et al., 2019 [30]Finland13% ***
Chiesi and Grazzini et al., 2019 [31]Italy39.8% 21%
Girestam Croonquist et al., 2019 [32]Sweden 7.8 (SD 3.0) **
Tanji et al., 2020 [33]Japan32% <10 teeth 44.4%
Bianco A et al., 2021 [34]Italy31.90% 17%
Ericson et al., 2022 [9]Sweden 8.0 (SD 5.9) **
Tokumoto et al., 2022 [35]Japan 14.7 (SD 8.0)
SD = Standard Deviation * Data are from a community setting rather than a Long-Term Care setting ** only dentate individuals were included *** Edentulous without dentures.
Table 3. Coronal dental caries among long term care residents.
Table 3. Coronal dental caries among long term care residents.
AuthorCountryCaries SeverityUntreated Caries Severity and PrevalenceCaries Increment/Prevalence of New Lesions (DS/DT)
MacEntee et. al., 1985 [36]Canada 78%
Vigild et al., [37]Denmark DT = 9.6
Jones et al., 1993 [38]USAFS = 9.5 (SD 5.7)DT = 1.0 (SD 1.5)
MacEntee et al., 1993 [39]CanadaDMFT = 24.1DT = 3.4 (SD 4.4)
DS = 7.4 (SD 12.1)		DS/year = 0.9 (SD 1.5)
FS/year = 0.5 (SD 1.3)
Wyatt, 2002 [40]CanadaDMFS = 112.3 (SD 26.6)DS = 3.8 (SD 4.2)
Chalmers et al., 2002 [17]AustraliaDMFT = 23.7
Chalmers et al., 2002 [18]AustraliaDMFT = 24.4 (SD 4.5)DT = 1.7 (SD 2.5)17.7% (SE11.7%) **
McMillan et al., 2003 [41]Hong KongDMFT = 21.4 (SD 0.6)DT = 2.1 (SD 0.2)
Wyatt and MacEntee., 2004 [21]CanadaDMFS = 112.3 (SD 26.6) DT/year = 2.3 (SD not presented)
Chalmers et al., 2005 [22]Australia DT/year 2.2 (SD 3.9)/year
Adam et al., 2006 [23]UKDMFT = 29.7 (SD 11.7)DT = 0.9
Vilstrup et al., 2007 [42]DenmarkFS = 11.8DS = 3.0 (SD 3.4); 57.60%
Arpin et al., 2008 [25]CanadaDMFT = 24.9
Gluhak et al., 2010 [43]AustriaDMFT = 25.6 (SD 4.2)
Chen et al., 2010 [44]United StatesDMFT = 23.2DT = 3.3 (SD 4.0)
Ellefsen et al., 2012 [45]DenmarkFS = 32.4 (SD 21.4)DS = 2.9 (SD 3.6)
Philip P et al., 2012 [26]AustraliaDMFT = 26.0 (SD 4.3) *DT = 3.0 (SD 3.5)
Silva et al., 2014 [46]AustraliaDMFT = 21.7 (SD 0.3)DT = 2.7 (SD 0.2)
Bilder et al., 2014 [47]Israel DT = 4.2 (SD 4.5)
Agrawal et al., 2015 [8]IndiaDFT—8.3 *DT = 1.5 (no SD reported)
Tompson et. al., 2015 [28]NZDMFT = 24.2 (CI 23.5, 25.0)DT = 2.2 (CI 1.8, 2.5) 61.3%; DT among those with caries = 3.5 (CI 3.1, 4.0)
Holtzman et al., 2015 [48]USA DT = 0.50 (26.0%)
Pham & Nguyen, 2018 [29]VietnamDMFT = 20.0DT = 5.8 (SD 4.0)
Zhang et al., 2019 [49]Hongkong, ChinaDMFT = 10.1 (SD not reported)DT = 0.8 (SD 1.6)
Bianco et al., 2021 [34]ItalyDMFT = 26.4 (SD 7.5)DT—3.5 (SD 4.6); 70.8%
Ericson et al., 2022 [9]Sweden DT—2.0 (SD 6.7)
DMFT/DMFS refer to the Decayed Missing and Filled index where data are presented at Teeth (T) level or Surface (S) Level * Value explicitly excludes edentulous from the sample; ** Caries attack (% of eligible surfaces to become carious).
Table 4. Root carious lesions among long-term care residents.
Table 4. Root carious lesions among long-term care residents.
CitationCountryRoot Caries Definition **Severity/Prevalence of Root Caries **Incidence and Increment ***
Jones et al., 1993 [38]USANIDCR definitionT-DRS = 2.8 (SD 4.3)
T-DRS = 4.6 (SD 4.7)		T-DRS/year = 1.0 (SD 3.3)
MacEntee et al., 1993 [39]CanadaNS T-DRS/year = 1.6 (SD 3.1)
Filled root surfaces = 0.8 (SD 2.3)/year
Berg et al., 2000 [50]USANIDCR diagnostic criteria.DRS = 4.1 (SD 8.9)
FRS = 21.1 (SD 18.5)
Wyatt et al., 2012 [40]CanadaThe Root Caries IndexDFRS = 30.3 (SD 26.1)
Chalmers et al., 2002 [17]AustraliaThe Root Caries IndexT-DRS = 1.5; T-FRS = 1.1
Chalmers et al., 2002 [18]AustraliaThe Root Caries IndexT-DRS = 2.6 (SD 3.9)
T-DFRS = 1.3 (SD 3.3)
McMillan et al., 2003 [41]Hong KongNST-DRS = 1.3 (SD 0.2) teeth
Wyatt and MacEntee, 2004 [21]CanadaThe Root Caries IndexT-DRS= 4.6 (SD 6.8); 68% of people1.8 (SD 1.6)
Chalmers et al., 2005 [22]AustraliaNIDCR definition 0.8/year
Tan et al., 2010 [51]HongkongLesions “easily penetrable with a sharp sickle probe”DRS = 1.3 (SD 0.1); FRS = 0.8 (SD 0.1)
10.7% of exposed root surfaces		1.3 (SD 0.2) or 0.4/year
Ellefsen et al., 2012 [45]DenmarkNIDCR criteriaDRS = 4.9 (SD 6.1); FRS = 5.4 (SD 4.8)
Philip P et al., 2012 [26]AustraliaThe Root Caries Index0.1 (SD 0.4)
Ekstrandet al., 2013 [52]DenmarkNS3.3 (SD 3.0) *
Zhang et al., 2013 [49]ChinaNST-DRS = 0.2 (0.1)1.0 (SD 0.1)/year
Silva et al., 2014 [46]AustraliaICDAS II ≥ Code 2T-DRS = 3.4 (0.3)
Tompson et al., 2015 [28]NZA lesion on the root surface that was soft to exploration using a periodontal probeT-DRS = 0.8 (CI 0.6, 1.0); 33.7%—among those with >1 lesion TDRS = 2.4 (CI 2.0, 2.7)
Pham and Nguyen, 2018 [29]VietnamNST-DRS = 6.0 (SD 4.2)
Zhang et al., 2020 [53]Hongkong, ChinaVisual inspection (NS)T- DR = 0.7 (±1.7); T-DFS = 1.3 (SD 2.1); 43.10% of people
Patel et al., 2022 [54]UKNST-DFRS = 3.1; 69.20% of people
Ericson et al., 2022 [9]SwedenNyvad modified criteria 11.4% of lesions progressed
Tokumoto et al., 2022 [35]JapanFejerskov et al.16% of teethT-DRS = 14.6% of teeth/year and 22.5% of existing lesions progressed across one-year
NIDCR = National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research; NS = Not stated; T-DRS = Tooth level indicator for one of more Decayed Root Surfaces; DRS = Decayed root surface as a surface level indicator; FRS = Filled root surface as a surface level indicator; T-DFRS = Tooth level indicator for the Decay or Filling on one or more root surface; T-DFS. * Index used to classify carious lesions on the root surface ** Severity is defined in terms of the number of lesions where as prevalence is defined as the proportion of individuals. *** Incidence is the proportion of individuals with one or more new lesions and increment is the number of new carious lesions on root surfaces per year.
Table 5. Periodontal disease among LTC residents.
Table 5. Periodontal disease among LTC residents.
AuthorCountryDisease DescriptorPerio Status/Incidence of Disease
MacEntee et al., 1985 [36]CanadaCPITNCPI > 3 = 29%
Beck et al., 1995 [55]USA **Incidence = % of people with 1+ sites of AL of 3+ mm over 3 years Affected = mean number of sites with AL in people with AL.One or more new sites of attachment loss = 27.5% of people. Progression of existing sites with attachment loss = 11.1% of people
Overall (either new or progressing sites) = 20.1%
The mean number of sites progressing = 4.5 sites (SD 0.5)
Ogawa H et al., 2002 [57]Japan *Worst CAL<4 mm = 3.5%; 4–6 mm = 32.5%; >6 mm = 64%
Levy et al., 2003 [58]USA **Worst attachment lossFor those who had their most severe CAL at 4 mm, the mean number of sites involved was 11.38 (±12.47); 6 mm = 1.93 ± 5.05; 8 mm = 0.44 (1.62)
McMillan et al., 2003 [41]Hong Kong **The most severe CPITN scoreCPI 0 = 0.0%; CPI 1 = 0.5%; CPI 2 = 40.1%; CPI 3 = 39.6%;
CPI 4 = 19.8%
Mack et al., 2004 [59]Germany *Presence of pockets >4 mm and >6 mm≥4 mm pockets = 49.1%; ≥6 mm pockets = 21.7%
Ajwani and Ainamo, 2004 [12]Finland **One or more sextants with > Code 3 CPITNCPI ≥ 3 = 43%
Qian et al., 2007 [56]USA *CAL, Incidence of ALOSS (>2 mm difference).Mean CAL = 1.6 mm (SD 0.6); 16.1% of sites with >2 mm progression/10 years.
Yoshihara et al., 2008 [13]Japan *Presence of site with >3 mm difference in periodontal readings across one-yearSites per year = 9.8 (SD 6.5)
Orwoll et al., 2009 [60]USA *Gingival index, Gingival bleeding, CALMean gingival index = 1.2 + 0.5; Prevalence of gingival bleeding = 53%; Mean CAL = 3.0 (SD 0.8)
Chen et al., 2010 [44]USA *Presence of calculus, plaque and gingival bleeding;none= 1.2%; mild to moderate = 81.3%; High = 17.7%
Gluhak et al., 2010 [43]AustriaCPITNCPI ≥ 2 = 84.1%
Siukosaari et al., 2010 [61]Finland **Most severe CPITNCPI ≥ 3 = 44.7
Sánchez-García et al., 2011 [62]Mexico *% of those with CPI code >2CPI > 2 = 36.1%
Syrjälä et al., 2012 [63]Finland *Number of teeth with pocket depth >4 mmMean of 2.9 teeth (SD3.7)
Gaio et al., 2012 [64]Brazil *Worst CAL (person level)W-CAL ≥ 3 mm = 94%; W-CAL ≥ 5 mm = 60% of teeth
Tompson et al., 2015 [28]NZCPI code on index teethCPI ≥ 3 = 11.2% (CI 7.9, 14.5)
CPI > 4 = 2.1%
Agrawal et al., 2015 [8]IndiaCPITN by sextant0.5 sextants/person (SD 0.9);
Pham and Nguyen, 2018 [29]VietnamWorst pocket depth≤3 mm = 526 (73.8%); 4–6 mm = 116 (16.7%); ≥7 mm = 68 (9.5%)
Kimble et al., 2022 [65]US/UK *Percentage people with 20% of sites having >3.5 mm CALUK sample—>20% with >3.5 mm pockets = 20.1%
US sample—>20% with >3.5 mm pockets = 52.9%
Kotronia et al., 2022 [66]UK/US *>20% sites with LOA >3.5 mm and >5.5 mmUK sample—20% >3.5 mm = 53%; 20% > 5.5 mm = 29%
US sample—>20% >3.5 mm = 64%; >20% > 5.5 mm = 31%
CPI = Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need; CAL = Combined Attachment Loss; LOA = Loss of Attachment * community setting; ALOSS = Attachment loss ** mixed community and long term care setting.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Turton, B.; Alqunaybit, G.; Tembhe, A.; Qari, A.; Rawal, K.; Mandel, E.; Calabrese, J.; Henshaw, M. Estimation of Oral Disease Burden among Older Adults in LTC: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030248

AMA Style

Turton B, Alqunaybit G, Tembhe A, Qari A, Rawal K, Mandel E, Calabrese J, Henshaw M. Estimation of Oral Disease Burden among Older Adults in LTC: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(3):248. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030248

Chicago/Turabian Style

Turton, Bathsheba, Gheed Alqunaybit, Amrita Tembhe, Alaa Qari, Kadambari Rawal, Ernest Mandel, Joseph Calabrese, and Michelle Henshaw. 2024. "Estimation of Oral Disease Burden among Older Adults in LTC: A Scoping Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 3: 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030248

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop