ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[Trends in dental and oral health status in Germany between 1997 and 2014].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' trajectory from tooth loss to dental rehabilitation and living with implant-supported dentures - a qualitative interview study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Development of liver disease caused by chronic periodontitis in rats.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- The Clinical Significance of Anaerobic Coverage in the Antibiotic Treatment of Aspiration Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Forensic Identification: Dental Scan Data Sets of the Palatal Fold Pairs as an Individual Feature in a Longitudinal Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is no comprehensive presentation of trends in oral diseases in the German general population over the last 20 years.
objectivesHow did prevalences of caries, periodontitis, and tooth loss and their determinants change in Germany between 1997 and 2014? MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analysed data from 35- to 44-year-olds and 65- to 74-year-olds from the German Oral Health Studies ("Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudien" [DMS]) III to V and of 25- to 74-year-olds from the Studies of Health in Pomerania (SHIP‑0 and SHIP-Trend-0). The decayed, missing, filled teeth index (DMFT), the number of sound teeth, the community periodontal index (CPI), and data on tooth count and edentulism were analysed.
resultsRegarding determinants, an increase in subjects with high school education, a slight decrease in smokers, and an increase in better oral hygiene patterns was observed in both studies. In 35- to 44-year-olds, the number of sound teeth increased from 11.9 in DMS III to 16.8 in DMS V, while in 65- to 74-year-olds the number of sound teeth increased by 5.9. A similar trend was observed in SHIP. In DMS, the prevalence of the highest CPI score of 4 decreased from 9.3% to 3.5% in 35- to 44-year-olds; in 65- to 74-year-olds, the 2014 prevalence was at the same level as in 1997 (10.5% and 9.8%). In parallel, the percentage of edentulous 65- to 74-year-olds halved in both studies. The number of teeth increased across all age strata.
conclusionsDMS and SHIP consistently showed an increase in the number of healthy teeth free of fillings, a slight reduction of subjects with a CPI score of 4, more tooth retention, and less edentulism. Because of more tooth retention and current demographic changes, higher periodontal treatment needs might be expected for the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.