Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27896484›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

Oral health status and need for oral care of care-dependent indwelling elderly: from admission to death.

Arie R Hoeksema, Lilian L Peters, Gerry M Raghoebar, Henny J A Meijer, Arjan Vissink, Anita Visser

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oral Health Status and Need for Oral Care in an Aging Population: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arie R HoeksemaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Lilian L PetersDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Gerry M RaghoebarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Henny J A MeijerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Arjan VissinkDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Anita VisserDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, BB70, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, NL-9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands. a.visser@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-2334

Funding

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Tandheelkunde N.A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study is to assess oral health and oral status of elderly patients newly admitted to a nursing home from admission until death. MATERIALS AND

methodsOral health, oral status, need for dental care, cooperation with dental treatment, and given dental care were assessed by two geriatric dentists in all new long-stay patients (n = 725) admitted to a nursing home between January 2009 and December 2013. All patients were followed from admission until death or until they left the nursing home.

resultsAt admission, dementia patients were significantly older than somatic patients; median [IQR] ages were, respectively, 85 [79-89] and 81 [76-87] (p = 0.001). In addition, edentulous patients were significantly older than patients with remaining teeth, 83 [79-89] versus 80 [74-86] (p = 0.001) years. Thirty percent of the admitted patients died within 12 months after admission. A small minority (20%) of the patients had their own teeth. In this group, poor oral hygiene (72%), caries (70%), and broken teeth (62%) were frequently observed. Edentulous patients were significantly more cooperative with treatment than patients with remaining teeth (64 versus 27%). Finally, significantly less professional dental care was given to edentulous patients when compared to patients with remaining teeth (median 90 [IQR 60-180] versus 165 [75-375] min).

conclusionWhen compared to edentulous elderly patients, patients with remaining teeth were younger at admittance, were more often non-cooperative, and had a poorer oral health and higher need for dental care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important that health care workers ensure adequate oral health and dental care to frail elderly, especially for elderly with remaining teeth.

Indexed as

Dental Care for AgedHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth StatusNursing HomesOral HealthAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPatient ComplianceCare-dependentCooperationDental implantsElderlyNursing homeOral health status

Identifiers

PMID27896484
PMCPMC5559562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.