Situación de salud oral y calidad de vida de los adultos mayores

Abstract

Objetivos: Conocer la situación de salud oral y calidad de vida del adulto mayor que asiste a centros de salud pública del área oriente de Santiago de Chile durante los años 2011-2012. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo de corte transversal en una muestra probabilística de 380 adultos mayores. Se evaluó historia de caries, estado periodontal y situación protésica. La percepción de calidad de vida se midió con el Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI). Se establecieron dos categorías: “mala calidad de vida” (puntuación ≤ 57) y “buena calidad de vida” (puntuación >57). El análisis estadístico se hizo en programa STATA 11.0. Resultados: La edad media fue de 71,33 años (D.E. ± 7,26); 66,1% son mujeres; 51,6% casado y 78,9% pensionado. Un 32,4% tiene educación media completa. El COPD fue de 22,16 (IC: 95% 21,72-22,60) mayor en mujeres (p>0,05) y aumenta con la edad (p< 0.05). Un 44% tiene entre 1 y 4 piezas dentarias con lesiones de caries dental. El edentulismo fue de 7,1%. Un 20% presentó sacos periodontales > a 5,5 mm. Un 43% presenta higiene oral regular. Un 59,5% usa prótesis removible en el maxilar superior y 40,3% en el inferior. Un 76,6% percibe como mala su calidad de vida. Conclusión: Los adultos mayores son un grupo de especial interés para la salud pública debido a la mala percepción de su calidad de vida y vulnerabilidad de su salud bucal.

ICDAS and dmft/DMFT. Sensitivity and specificity, the importance of the index used: a systematic review

“…ICDAS used correctly has a sensitivity and specificity superior to dmft/DMFT 1,2,[31][32][33][34][35][36] , in addition to allowing carious lesions to be detected in early stages, favoring preventive treatment, noninvasive treatment and/ or minimally invasive treatment and not only put emphasis on restorative dentistry treating caries lesion and not the disease, but also promote changes in habits and raise awareness in people who are subjected to noninvasive and/or minimally invasive therapies, emphasizing treating the disease to reach a state of health and thus treating the injury 9 . On the other hand, it allows performing procedures at a lower cost, which in the long term can contribute to improving the oral health of the population, which is demonstrated in existing studies that report that 100% of the population studied presents caries and has been An average DMFT index in adults between 3.76 -22.16 6,42,[44][45][46] has been described.…”

Prevalence of periodontitis in dentate people between 2011 and 2020: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiological studies

“…Out of the articles remaining, 379 were excluded in the full‐text appraisal, due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (with the respective reason detailed in Supplementary File 2). Finally, a total of 57 articles (Moya et al, 2012; Figueiredo et al, 2013; Araya Vallespir et al, 2014; Jaafar et al, 2014; Juarez et al, 2014; Thanakun et al, 2014; Bhat et al, 2015; Eke et al, 2015; Giacaman et al, 2016; Khan et al, 2016; Holde et al, 2017; Ramírez et al, 2017; Shyagali et al, 2017; Silva‐Junior et al, 2017; Zaitsu et al, 2017; Balaji et al, 2018; Bhat et al, 2018; Eke et al, 2018; He et al, 2018; Iwasaki et al, 2018; Ortiz et al, 2018; Pinto‐Filho et al, 2018; Shariff et al, 2018; Skośkiewicz‐Malinowska et al, 2018; Wahlin et al, 2018; Botelho et al, 2019; Dhaifullah et al, 2019; Helmi et al, 2019; Lasta et al, 2019; J. B. Lee et al, 2019; K. Lee & Kim, 2019; Shimizu et al, 2019; Zhao et al, 2019; Bongo et al, 2020; Díaz‐Reissner et al, 2020; Ha et al, 2020; Nakamura et al, 2020; Romero‐Castro et al, 2020; Schmidt et al, 2020; Sekiguchi et al, 2020; Singh et al, 2020; Sun et al, 2020; Bilgin Çetin et al, 2021; Clauss et al, 2021; Costa et al, 2021; Germen et al, 2021; Ghassib et al, 2021; Goel et al, 2021; Gomes‐Filho et al, 2021; Han & Kim, 2021; Iwasaki et al, 2021; Jiao et al, 2021; Kocher et al, …”

“…Out of the articles remaining, 379 were excluded in the full-text appraisal, due to not meeting the inclusion criteria (with the respective reason detailed in Supplementary File 2). Finally, a total of 57 articles (Moya et al, 2012;Figueiredo et al, 2013; Araya Vallespir F I G U R E 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews that included searches of databases and registers only. Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers).…”