Objective To assess the validity of patient self‐reported oral health measures as used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+. Background Information on people's oral health status is important for assessing oral health needs within populations. However, clinical examination is not always possible. Patient self‐reported measures may provide an alternative when time and other resources are scarce. Materials and methods Using oral health items from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), self‐reported measures were collected from 186 patients receiving treatment at Heidelberg University Hospital. Self‐reports were compared with subsequent clinical examinations. Analyses were conducted for patients of all age groups and separately for patients aged 50+ (analogous to the SHARE study population). Diagnostic accuracy, agreement and correlation of patient‐reported information were examined using descriptive statistics and Bland‐Altman plots. Results Patient‐reported presence or absence of a full tooth count was closely related to clinical measurement, both for all age groups (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 92%) and persons aged 50+ (sensitivity: 100% specificity: 94%). Bland‐Altman plots indicate good agreement between patient‐ and clinical reports of the number of teeth at age 50+ (Concordance Correlation Coefficient = 0.95). Discriminatory power of patient‐reporting was good regarding presence vs absence of artificial teeth, but less robust regarding partial vs full replacement of missing teeth. Conclusion Patient self‐evaluations provide reasonable estimates of clinical measures and appear sufficiently accurate for examining variations in the number of teeth, including among populations aged 50+. However, patient reports of the extent of replacement of missing teeth may not constitute reliable reflections of clinical conditions.

As the reported data on oral health status among the migrants in Europe is fragmented, we systematically reviewed the published literature on the oral health status, behaviours and care utilisation among migrants residing in Europe. For this, we retrieved publications from PubMed and EMBASE, supplemented by manual citation screening and grey literature search on Google scholars. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted data and critically appraised the publications. A total of 69 studies included showed higher dental caries among migrant children. But some studies on adolescents and adults reported similar or even better oral health among migrants compared to the host population, while other reported the opposite. Poor oral health behaviours were generally reported among the migrants and they frequently made use of emergency service utilisation compared to the host population. We shed light on the gaps in dental literature and make some recommendations for the future.

The number of very old individuals, namely centenarians, is growing fast. In dentistry, the increasing number of older adults retaining natural teeth present new challenges for preventive and restorative dental care. However, there is a considerable lack of knowledge on the oral health status and needs in this exceptional age group. The aim of this population-based study was to identify the prevalence of oral diseases, therapeutic needs and functional capacity (evaluating centenarians’ autonomy and their capabilities regarding treatment and oral hygiene) in centenarians. Subjects born before 1920 were recruited from population registries in South-Western Germany, providing information on dental health experiences, oral health behaviors and undergoing dental examination. 55 centenarians participated in the study (mean age ± SD = 101.2 ± 1.6, 83.6% females). Results were compared to epidemiological data on adults aged 75–100 years examined in the Fifth German Oral Health Study. Adherence to recommended dental behaviors and dental check-ups was lower in the centenarian population. Moreover, with the exception of a lower Root Caries Index, centenarians showed a higher caries experience, and presented with a mean DMFT of 25.2 ± 3.9, a DMFS of 111.0 ± 21.8, a root caries prevalence of 34.5% and a Restorative Index of 54.0%. Centenarians’ functional capacity was also considerably lower. Non-existent or greatly reduced treatment capabilities and oral hygiene capabilities were registered in 63.7% and 43.6% of cases, respectively. Centenarians with a lower educational level (p = 0.018), in a care facility (p = 0.045) or in need of nursing care (p = 0.001) were more likely to have a low functional capacity. 98.2% of centenarians received help in their daily activities but only 12.7% in their oral hygiene. In conclusion, although most still have natural teeth, a decline of oral health can be perceived. As compliance with recommended behaviors is limited and most centenarians can no longer undergo dental treatment, the lack of assistance in daily oral health care is problematic.

Periodontitis is interrelated with various other chronic diseases. Recent evidence suggests that treatment of periodontitis improves glycemic control in diabetes patients and reduces the costs of diabetes treatment. So far, however, screening for periodontitis in non-dental settings has been complicated by a lack of easily applicable and reliable screening tools which can be applied by non-dental professionals. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a short seven-item tool developed by the German Society for Periodontology (DG PARO) to screen for periodontitis by means of patient-reported information. A total of 88 adult patients filled in the patient-reported Periodontitis Risk Score (pPRS; range: 0 points = lowest periodontitis risk; 20 points = very high periodontitis risk) questionnaire before dental check-up at Heidelberg University Hospital. Subsequent clinical assessments according to Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR®) were compared with pPRS scores. The diagnostic accuracy of pPRS at different cutoff values was assessed according to sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values, as well as Receiver-Operator-Characteristic curves, Area Under the Curve (AUC), and logistic regression analysis. According to combined specificity and sensitivity (AUC = 0.86; 95%-CI: 0.76–0.95), the diagnostic accuracy of the pPRS for detecting periodontal inflammation (PSR® ≥ 3) was highest for a pPRS cutoff distinguishing between pPRS scores < 7 vs. ≥ 7. Patients with pPRS scores ≥ 7 had a 36.09 (95%-CI: 9.82–132.61) times higher chance of having a PSR® ≥ 3 than patients with scores < 7. In conclusion, the pPRS may be considered an appropriately accurate stand-alone tool for the screening for periodontitis.