Locker D, Slade G D, Murray H
Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Periodontol 2000. 1998 Feb;16:16-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00113.x.
Although many epidemiological studies have been conducted concerning periodontal disease, the majority were not included in this review because of deficiencies in the measures used. Although it is increasingly common for studies in this field to measure periodontal disease using clinical attachment level, attachment loss or bone loss, the evidence pertaining to prevalence, incidence and risk in older adult populations is limited. Although it is the best indicator to date, characterizing periodontal disease by means of attachment loss has some limitations. Prevalence and incidence rates may vary according to the number of teeth and sites probed and bias and case misclassification may occur because of the healthy survivor effect. Moreover, prevalence data that document lifetime disease experience are of little use in planning for periodontal treatment needs. Problems with sampling or subject selection and idiosyncratic ways of reporting data also limit the quality of the evidence currently available. In order to standardize the collection of data on loss of attachment and to measure it as accurately as possible, Papapanou (63) recommends that studies use full-mouth periodontal examinations and the assessment of clinical attachment level at four sites on each remaining tooth. Given the inconsistencies in and problems with the methods used in the studies reviewed above, only broad conclusions can be drawn concerning periodontal disease in older adults. These confirm the conclusions reached in other reviews of the literature. While moderate levels of attachment loss are to be found in a high percentage of middle-aged and elderly subjects, severe loss is confined to a minority, albeit a substantial one. Severe loss is evident in only a few sites and, in general, affects only a small proportion of sites examined. Nevertheless, approximately one-fifth of older individuals have experienced more generalized severe loss; the rate is much higher in the oldest subjects and subjects from minority groups. Although not universal, severe disease is common in some older populations and some population subgroups. Studies using common approaches are needed to fully elucidate the extent to which disease experience varies across different populations. Similar conclusions can be drawn from prevalence studies measuring bone loss. These show that a minority of subjects accounted for most sites with advanced loss. Studies of incidence suggest that 50-75% of older adults experience additional loss of attachment of 2 or 3 mm or more at a minimum of one site over relatively short periods of time. Rates fall dramatically when more stringent case definitions are used. Moreover, relatively few sites examined show evidence of additional loss so that, although rates are high, extent and severity are low. More detailed analyses of incidence data, although few, indicate that new lesions are more common than progressing lesions, and the pattern of loss tends to support an episodic model of periodontal disease progression.
尽管已经开展了许多关于牙周病的流行病学研究,但由于所采用测量方法存在缺陷,大多数研究未被纳入本综述。虽然该领域的研究越来越普遍地使用临床附着水平、附着丧失或骨丧失来测量牙周病,但有关老年人群患病率、发病率及风险的证据仍然有限。尽管附着丧失是迄今为止表征牙周病的最佳指标,但仍存在一些局限性。患病率和发病率可能因探诊牙齿数量和位点不同而有所差异,而且由于健康幸存者效应可能会出现偏差和病例误诊。此外,记录终生疾病经历的患病率数据对规划牙周治疗需求几乎没有用处。抽样或受试者选择问题以及独特的数据报告方式也限制了现有证据的质量。为了规范附着丧失数据的收集并尽可能准确地进行测量,帕帕纳努(63)建议研究采用全口牙周检查,并对每颗余留牙的四个位点进行临床附着水平评估。鉴于上述综述中研究方法存在的不一致性和问题,关于老年人牙周病只能得出宽泛的结论。这些结论证实了其他文献综述所得出的结论。虽然在高比例的中年和老年受试者中可发现中度附着丧失水平,但严重丧失仅局限于少数人,尽管这部分人数量不少。严重丧失仅在少数位点明显,且总体上仅影响一小部分检查位点。然而,约五分之一的老年人经历过更广泛的严重丧失;在年龄最大的受试者和少数群体受试者中该比例更高。尽管并不普遍,但严重疾病在一些老年人群和一些人群亚组中很常见。需要采用通用方法开展研究,以充分阐明疾病经历在不同人群中的差异程度。测量骨丧失的患病率研究也可得出类似结论。这些研究表明,少数受试者占了大多数有严重骨丧失位点。发病率研究表明,50% - 75%的老年人在相对较短时间内至少有一个位点出现额外2毫米或3毫米及以上的附着丧失。当使用更严格的病例定义时,发病率会大幅下降。此外,检查的位点中显示有额外丧失证据的相对较少,因此,尽管发病率高,但范围和严重程度较低。对发病率数据进行的更详细分析(虽然数量很少)表明,新病变比进展性病变更常见,而且丧失模式倾向于支持牙周病进展的间歇性模型。