ObjectivesEstimate the prevalence of functional dentition among Brazilian adults using four different definitions and identify associated factors.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted involving 9564 Brazilian adults aged 35–44 years who participated in the 2010 National Oral Health Survey. Data collection involved oral examinations and the administration of questionnaires. The following definitions were used: 1—WHO Functional Dentition (FDWHO: ≥ 20 teeth present); 2—well-distributed teeth (WDT: ≥ 10 teeth in each arch); 3 –Functional dentition classified by esthetics and occlusion (FDClass5: dentitions that sequentially exhibit at least one tooth in each arch, at least 10 teeth in each arch, all maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth, three or four premolar posterior occluding pairs [POPs], and at least one molar POP bilaterally); 4—Functional dentition classified by esthetics, occlusion and periodontal status (FDClass6: corresponds to FDClass5 with the addition of periodontal status of all sextants in the oral cavity with, at most, shallow pockets and/or clinical attachment level of 5 mm (CPI ≤ 3 and/or CAL ≤ 1). The independent variables were individual factors (gender, self-declared skin color, schooling, monthly household income, age group, self-rated treatment need, dental pain, dental appointment in the previous 12 months and dental services) and contextual factors (Municipal Human Development Index [MHDI]), Gini coefficient, fluoridated water supply and oral health coverage). Multilevel mixed-effect Poisson regression analyses were performed.ResultsThe prevalence of functional dentition based on the FDWHO, WDT, FDClass5 and FDClass6 definitions was 77.9%, 72.9%, 42.6% and 40.3%, respectively. Adults with ≥12 years of schooling and monthly household income from US$ 853 to 2557 had higher prevalence rates of FDWHO (PR: 1.41 and 1.10, respectively), WDT (PR: 1.58 and 1.14, respectively), FDClass5 (PR: 2.03 and 1.27, respectively) and FDClass6 (PR: 2.15 and 1.35, respectively). These values in the final models were adjusted for gender, self-declared skin color (FDClass5), age group, self-rated treatment need (FDWHO, FDClass5 and FDClass6), dental appointment in the previous 12 months (FDWHO and WDT), dental services (FDWHO and WDT) and contextual factors. A very high MHDI and presence of fluoridated water supply were associated with higher prevalence rates of the four outcomes.ConclusionsThe incorporation of the criteria of new definitions of functional dentition led to a lower prevalence rate among Brazilian adults. Striking individual and contextual inequalities were identified with regard to the four definitions analyzed, which need to be addressed through inter-sector efforts.

Income, education, type of dental service most often used, lifestyle, risk behaviors and demographic conditions are distal, intermediate and proximal social determinants of health associated with functional dentition in adults, demonstrating the need for public policies aimed to promoting oral health including intersectoral actions.

Quantitative CBCT indices may help dentists to screen for women with low spinal and femoral bone mineral density so that they can refer postmenopausal women for bone densitometry.

BackgroundDental esthetics, chewing and speech should be preserved in a dentition denominated functional and are closely related to satisfaction with oral health (SOH), impacts caused by oral problems and have a possible association with Oral Health-Related Quality of Life. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the influence of different concepts of functional dentition (FD) on both SOH and impacts on daily performance (IDP) among Brazilian adults.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with 9564 adults (35–44 years). SOH and IDP were evaluated using the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) questionnaire. FD was considered based on four different definitions: I-classification of the World Health Organization (FDWHO = ≥20 teeth); II-well-distributed teeth (WDT = ≥10 teeth in each arch); III-classified by esthetics and occlusion (FDClass5 = sequential presence of one tooth in each arch, ≥10 teeth in each arch, 12 anterior teeth, ≥three posterior occluding pairs [POPs] of premolars and ≥one POP molar bilaterally); and IV-classified by esthetics, occlusion and periodontal status (FDClass6 = FDClass5 plus all sextants with CPI ≤ 3 and/or CAL ≤ 1). The proportion of adults satisfied with oral health and without overall impact (OIDP = 0) was calculated for each definition of FD. Multiple Poisson regression models were adjusted by demographic-socioeconomic characteristics, self-reported oral problems and the use of dental services for each dependent variable.ResultsWhen FDClass5 and FDClass6 were considered a greater proportion of adults reported being satisfied (52.1 and 53.1%, respectively) and have OIDP = 0 (52.4 and 53.3, respectively). In the multiple models, SOH was associated with FDClass5 (RP = 1.21) and FDClass6 (RP = 1.24) and OIDP = 0 was associated with WDT (RP = 1.14) and FDClass6 (RP = 1.21).ConclusionsThe greater influence of WDT, FDClass5 and FDClass6 on aspects related to quality of life in comparison to FDWHO demonstrates the need for the establishment of a broader definition of FD that encompasses subjective aspects.

Objectives To assess the association between dentin hypersensitivity (DH) (with or without non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL)) and physical and psychosocial oral health impact. Methods A cross-sectional population-based study with one-stage random sample of adults living in a Brazilian municipally was conducted between 2018 and 2019. Interviews and oral examinations were performed by calibrated examiners (Kappa ≥0.7). The participant was considered as having physical and psychosocial impact if at least one item of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) was experienced fairly often or very often. NCCL was assessed by the Tooth Wear Index (codes 2 to 4) and DH was evaluated by a tactile test with a probe in the cervical area of teeth. The combination of these clinical variables resulted in categories of the independent variable: without DH or NCCL, NCCL without DH, DH without NCCL, and both DH with NCCL. The covariables were sociodemographic and economic factors, health habits, and oral conditions. Associations were investigated by Poisson Regression models using Direct Acyclic Graph (Stata 17). Results Of 197 adults, 59.3% had oral health impact and 31.3% had DH with NCCL. Higher frequency of oral health impact was observed in adults with DH alone. A higher impact on the physical pain dimension of the OHIP-14 was observed in adults with DH and NCCL (PR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.21–5.00) and with DH alone (PR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.21–3.41). Conclusion NCCL and DH are common conditions in adults and the presence of DH is associated with higher oral health impact. Regardless the presence of NCCL, DH is associated with the physical pain dimension of OHRQoL.