ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Oral health status among 60-year-old individuals born in 1941-1943 and 1954-1955 and 81-year-old individuals born in 1922-1924 and 1933-1934, respectively: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of self-management interventions based on the COM-B model on peri-implant condition in older adults with periodontitis: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Periodontitis and all-cause mortality in 60- and 66-year-old individuals: a 23-year prospective cohort study.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- A dual perception of an ageing orofacial appearance- an interview study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- Article
- Self-perceived oral health and orofacial appearance in older adults - an 18-year follow-up study in Karlskrona, Sweden.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Oral Health Status Using the Revised Oral Assessment Guide and Mortality in Older Orthopaedic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the oral health status of four different birth cohorts: two cohorts of 60-year-olds born in 1941-1943 and 1954-1955 and 2 cohorts of 81-year-olds born in 1920-1922 and 1933-1934. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was based on data from an ongoing longitudinal population project, The Swedish National Study on Aging and Care (SNAC). Oral health status was repeatedly examined clinically and radiographically in 2001-2003 and 2014-2015, including 60- and 81-year-olds, in total 412 individuals. Statistical analyses were performed using independent-samples t test and Pearson's χ
resultsMore individuals were dentate in 2014-2015 compared to 2001-2003 in the two age groups: 60 and 81 years (p < 0.001 for both). The mean number of teeth increased in the 60-year-olds from 24.2 to 27.0 and in the 81-year-olds from 14.3 to 20.2. The numbers of at least one intact tooth increased for both age groups (p < 0.001 and p < 0.004, respectively). In the age groups 81 years, there was an increase in having at least one PPD ≥ 6 mm (p < 0.016) and bone loss ≥ 5 mm (p < 0.029) between the two examinations. No such differences were found in the age groups of 60 years.
conclusionOver 13 years, oral health improved for both 60- and 81-year-old age groups. The most significant changes were in the 81-year-olds where oral health had improved except for periodontal status. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: More natural teeth and impaired periodontal status potentially impact oral health and should increase focus on preventive and supportive dental care in older individuals.
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.