Cross-sectional study of the factors associated with the number of teeth in middle-aged and older persons with intellectual disabilities.
Cross-sectional study of the factors associated with the number of teeth in middle-aged and older persons with intellectual disabilities.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jir.12967
复制
发表时间：
2022-10
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Shimazaki, Y.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nonoyama, T.;Nonoyama, K.;Shimazaki, Y.
关键词：
我们调查了中老年智力残疾人的牙齿数量，并评估了相关因素。对日本爱知县604名40岁以上的智力残疾人进行了口腔健康问卷调查。本研究所设计的问卷包括残疾诊断、智力残疾严重程度和居住类型等项目。作为口腔健康相关因素，对代理报告的牙齿数量、家庭牙医、定期牙科检查、牙科治疗期间的问题和刷牙频率进行了评价。以代理报告的牙齿数量（≥20、10-19或0-9）为因变量进行多项logistic回归分析，计算自变量的比值比（OR）和95%置信区间（CI）。此外，使用代理报告的牙齿数量作为因变量进行线性回归分析。在多变量多项logistic回归分析中，年龄、残疾诊断和居住类型与10-19颗牙齿和≥20颗牙齿显著相关。自闭症谱系障碍的参与者与智力残疾的参与者相比，10-19颗牙齿的OR显著较低[OR（95%CI）：0.49（0.22-1.08）]。年龄、残疾诊断、定期牙科检查和刷牙频率与0-9颗牙齿和≥ 20颗牙齿显著相关。唐氏综合征患者0-9颗牙齿的OR值显著高于智力残疾患者[OR（95%CI）：3.17（1.09-9.23）]。不定期牙科检查和刷牙1次/天的受试者的0-9颗牙齿的OR显著高于≥3次/天的受试者，OR（95%CI）分别为2.37（1.06-5.30）和4.76（1.09-20.77）。[在首次在线发布后，于2022年8月22日进行了更正：在前一句中，“谁参加”已改为“谁没有参加”。在多元线性回归分析中，年龄、残疾诊断和定期牙科检查与代理报告的牙齿数量显著相关。年龄每增加1岁，代理报告的牙齿数量减少-0.42。对于自闭症谱系障碍，代理报告的牙齿数量比智力残疾多0.74。在唐氏综合症中，代理报告的牙齿数量比智力残疾少-0.93颗。没有定期牙科检查的人的代理报告牙齿数量少了-2.12。中老年智力残疾人的牙齿数量与年龄和残疾类型有关。定期看牙可能有效地防止智力残疾的中年和老年人的牙齿脱落。
We investigated the number of teeth in middle‐aged and older individuals with intellectual disability and evaluated the related factors. A questionnaire survey on oral health was administered to 604 persons over 40 years old with intellectual disabilities in Aichi Prefecture, Japan. The questionnaire designed for this study included items on diagnosis of disability, severity of intellectual disability and type of residence. As oral‐health‐related factors, the proxy‐reported number of teeth, family dentist, regular dental check‐ups, problems during dental treatment and tooth‐brushing frequency were evaluated. A multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed using the proxy‐reported number of teeth (≥20, 10–19 or 0–9) as the dependent variable, and the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of independent variables were calculated. In addition, linear regression analysis was performed using the proxy‐reported number of teeth as the dependent variable. In the multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis, age, diagnosis of disability and type of residence were significantly associated with having 10–19 versus ≥20 teeth. Participants with autism spectrum disorder had a significantly lower OR for 10–19 teeth compared with those with intellectual disability [OR (95% CI): 0.49 (0.22–1.08)]. Age, diagnosis of disability, regular dental check‐ups and tooth‐brushing frequency were significantly associated with having 0–9 versus ≥20teeth. Participants with Down syndrome had a significantly higher OR for 0–9 teeth compared with those with intellectual disability [OR (95% CI): 3.17 (1.09–9.23)]. The ORs for 0–9 teeth of participants who did not attend regular dental check‐ups and who brushed their teeth 1 time/day compared with ≥3 times/day were significantly high, and the OR (95% CI) was 2.37 (1.06–5.30) and 4.76 (1.09–20.77), respectively. [Corrections made on 22 August 2022, after first online publication: in the previous sentence, “who attend” has been changed to “who did not attend”.] In the multivariate linear regression analysis, age, diagnosis of disability and regular dental check‐ups were significantly associated with the proxy‐reported number of teeth. The proxy‐reported number of teeth was −0.42 less with each 1‐year increase in age. With autism spectrum disorder, the proxy‐reported number of teeth was 0.74 more compared with intellectual disability. In Down syndrome, the proxy‐reported number of teeth was −0.93 less compared with intellectual disability. The proxy‐reported number of teeth was −2.12 less for those who did not have regular dental check‐ups. The number of teeth in middle‐aged and older individuals with intellectual disability was related to age and the type of disability. Regular dental visits may be effective at preventing tooth loss in middle‐aged and older persons with intellectual disability.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Ando A;Ohsawa M;Yaegashi Y;Sakata K;Tanno K;Onoda T;Itai K;Tanaka F;Makita S;Omama S;Ogasawara K;Ogawa A;Ishibashi Y;Kuribayashi T;Koyama T;Okayama A
通讯作者：
Okayama A
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Matsui D;Yamamoto T;Nishigaki M;Miyatani F;Watanabe I;Koyama T;Ozaki E;Kuriyama N;Kanamura N;Watanabe Y
通讯作者：
Watanabe Y
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Drachev SN;Brenn T;Trovik TA
通讯作者：
Trovik TA
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Khocht, Ahmed;Janal, Malvin;Turner, Bobby
通讯作者：
Turner, Bobby
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Park, Hyo-Eun;Song, Hye Young;Kim, Yang-Hyun
通讯作者：
Kim, Yang-Hyun