Oral health-related quality of life and associated factors in the elderly: a population-based cross-sectional study

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and associated factors in the elderly. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 287 elderly of Cruz Alta, Brazil. The following variables were collected: age, sex, ethnicity, level of education, marital status, retirement, medical/dental history, smoking/alcohol exposure, oral hygiene habits, use and need of dental prosthesis, missing teeth, temporomandibular disorder symptoms (TMD), nutritional status, and halitosis. OHRQoL was assessed by Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). The sample was categorized into low impact (sum scores ≤6) and high impact (sum scores ≥7). Associations were analyzed by Poisson regression with robust variation. Mean scores of OHIP-14 was 5.92±8.54. Divorced individuals and those who did not use dental floss presented 77% and 54%, respectively, higher prevalence ratio (PR) of having higher OHRQoL impact. Elderly that did not need dental prosthesis demonstrated a lower impact on OHRQoL (P<0.01). Elderly with TMD presented a higher PR of having higher OHRQoL impact (P<0.01). It was concluded that higher impact on OHRQoL was associated with marital status, non-users of dental floss and those with TMD. No need dental prosthesis were associated with lower impact on OHRQoL.

The association between halitosis and oral‐health‐related quality of life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Six studies were conducted in Brazil (Colussi et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Miotto et al, 2019; Colaço et al, 2020; Silveira et al, 2020; Nascimento et al, 2021) and two in China (He et al, 2012; Lu et al, 2017), while one study each was carried out in India (Appukuttan et al, 2016), New Zealand (Broughton et al, 2012), Iran (Ghazanfari et al, 2017), United States (Kizhner et al, 2011), and Sweden (Oghli et al, 2017). The methods used to assess halitosis were the Etiquette Checker (Ghazanfari et al, 2017), organoleptic method (Kizhner et al, 2011; He et al, 2012; Lu et al, 2017), self‐report (Broughton et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Colussi et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Miotto et al, 2019; Colaço et al, 2020; Nascimento et al, 2021), or a combination of self‐report and organoleptic measures (Silveira et al, 2020). The instruments used to assess the quality of life were the HALT questionnaire (Kizhner et al, 2011; He et al, 2012; Ghazanfari et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Silveira et al, 2020), OHIP‐14 (Broughton et al, 2012; Colussi et al, 2017; Lu et al, 2017; Miotto et al, 2019; Colaço et al, 2020; Nascimento et al, 2021), OHIP‐49 (Oghli et al, 2017), and GOHAI‐ADD (Appukuttan et al, 2016).…”

“…Six out of 12 studies scored a “no” in the following items of the critical appraisal instrument: (Q1) “Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?” (Broughton et al, 2012; He et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Colussi et al, 2017; Ghazanfari et al, 2017; Silveira et al, 2020); (Q2) “Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?” (Kizhner et al, 2011; Broughton et al, 2012; He et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Agostinho et al, 2019; Silveira et al, 2020); (Q4) “Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?” (Broughton et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Colussi et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Miotto et al, 2019); (Q5) “Were confounding factors identified?” (Kizhner et al, 2011; Broughton et al, 2012; He et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Ghazanfari et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017). Additionally, 8 out of 12 studies scored “no” in (Q3) “Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?” (Broughton et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Colussi et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Miotto et al, 2019; Colaço et al, 2020; Nascimento et al, 2021) and 7 scored “no” in (Q8) “Was appropriate statistical analysis used?” (Kizhner et al, 2011; Broughton et al, 2012; He et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Ghazanfari et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017; Silveira et al, 2020). Nine of 12 studies scored a “no” in item (Q6) “Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?” (Kizhner et al, 2011; Broughton et al, 2012; He et al, 2012; Appukuttan et al, 2016; Ghazanfari et al, 2017; Oghli et al, 2017; Agostinho et al, 2019; Miotto et al, …”

“…Additionally, 8 out of 12 studies scored "no" in (Q3) "Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?" (Broughton et al, 2012;Appukuttan et al, 2016;Colussi et al, 2017;Oghli et al, 2017;Agostinho et al, 2019;Miotto et al, 2019;Colaço et al, 2020;Nascimento et al, 2021) and 7 scored "no" in (Q8) "Was appropriate statistical analysis used?" (Kizhner et al, 2011;Broughton et al, 2012;He et al, 2012;Appukuttan et al, 2016;Ghazanfari et al, 2017;Oghli et al, 2017;Silveira et al, 2020).…”

Linguistic-cultural validation of the oral health assessment tool (OHAT) for the Italian context

“…to elderly subjects also with cognitive deficits. As reported in the literature, there is evidence that oral health care is not delivered at the same level as other health needs [1], and that oral health has a significant impact on the quality of life especially for older adults [2][3][4], constant assessment is essential in order to provide quality care.…”

“…The increase in the ageing population and the consequent establishment of a network of adequate structures to respond effectively to its healthcare have stimulated the discussion by healthcare professionals on the subject of oral hygiene since, as reported in the literature, there is evidence that oral healthcare is not delivered at the same level as other health needs [1]. Many studies have shown that oral health has a significant impact on the quality of life, especially for older adults [2][3][4]. The results of several clinical and epidemiological studies have shown that there is a significant relationship between oral health and specific pathological conditions such as infections of the myocardium, meninges, mediastinum and joint prostheses [5].…”