No abstract

In order to determine the validity of dental data obtained from a questionnaire, 100 subjects randomly selected from 2383 respondents were examined clinically. The quality of dental status was ordered in four groups for the number of missing and replaced teeth and for denture status. For the number of missing and replaced teeth, the observed agreement between the clinical diagnosis and the questionnaire answers was 65% for both the maxilla and the mandible, and the agreement estimated by Kappa was 0.52. However, the disagreement was not randomly distributed, since reporting of better dental status than the actual one was much more common than reporting of poorer status. Regarding denture status, the agreement between self-assessment and clinical diagnosis was good; all removable dentures in situ at the clinical examination were reported by the subjects as some kind of denture, although not always the correct type. The results of the study indicate that the use of self-assessment might be reasonable when measuring denture status, and that self-assessment of the number of missing and replaced teeth is a biased estimate of the clinical diagnosis. Thus appropriate action should be taken when using this type of data.

A random sample of non‐institutionalized people aged 65 years and over in Örebro County, Sweden, were examined radiographically. Periapical conditions and the prevalence and quality of root fillings were evaluated. Approximately every 10th tooth showed radiographic signs of apical periodontitis: more than 1 in 20 teeth not previously root‐filled and more than 1 in 4 root‐filled teeth. Only 28% of the subjects had no tooth with periapical destruction. In all, 18% of the teeth were root‐filled: 27% of maxillary teeth and 11% of mandibular teeth. Periapical destructions were less prevalent in people with many remaining teeth and among married people as compared to the rest of the population. Periapical destructions were more common in subjects from “rest of county” as compared to “densely‐populated areas”. Variations in treatment quality might be one explanation for this difference. The percentage of root fillings classified as “unacceptable” was high (69%).

No abstract

In 1998-99 two parallel questionnaire studies were performed in Denmark and Sweden. In Denmark the age group was 45-69 years and in Sweden 55-79 years. One aim was to study the influence of socioeconomic and attitudinal factors on dental status in the two countries. For the comparable age groups 55-69 years there was a striking difference in dental conditions between the countries. In Sweden, 72% had either all teeth remaining, missing teeth replaced by fixed prosthodontics, or only one or two single missing teeth not replaced. The corresponding figure for Denmark was 44%. Among Danes, 34% were wearing removable denture(s) or were edentulous in one jaw or both jaws, compared with 15%, among Swedes. In logistic regression models, higher income and longer education were significantly associated with the best dental status categories in Denmark but not in Sweden. In the model with wearing removable denture(s) as the dependent variable, lower income and lower education level showed a significant influence for the Danes. In Sweden, lower income showed a significant influence but education level was insignificant. In both Denmark and Sweden, a positive attitude toward the importance of dental appearance was associated with an increased risk of wearing removable denture(s).