Department of Prosthodontics, Dental school, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;41(3):261-8. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12007. Epub 2012 Sep 29.
Oral hygiene and health of the institutionalized elderly are frequently described as inadequate.
This randomized and single-blinded (outcome evaluation) study compared three types of intervention for improving oral hygiene with a control. The purpose was to investigate whether there were any significant differences between the intervention and control groups.
One hundred and six participants living in long-term care homes in South-West Germany were recruited and randomly divided into four groups-three therapy groups and one control group. For all three therapy groups, teeth and dentures were cleaned professionally and individual instruction was given. One of these groups was also re-instructed and remotivated by a dentist (n = 27). One also received help from, and was remotivation by, staff educated in dental hygiene (n = 26). The third therapy group was not remotivated after professional cleaning of teeth and dentures (n = 26). For the control group, there was no intervention (n = 23). The main target clinical data were mean plaque (plaque-control record, O'Leary), gingival bleeding (Ainamo/Bay), and denture hygiene indices. For assessment of the difference between being in an intervention group and in a control group, mixed-model analysis for repeated measurements was performed for each main target variable. In addition, target clinical data were evaluated in long-term follow-up after 3 years.
Compared with controls, denture hygiene, plaque, and gingival bleeding indices were significantly lower in the intervention groups over a twelve-week period (mixed model for repeated measurements; P < 0.023). Estimates of effects between control and each treatment group were comparable among the three therapy groups; however, even though two of the groups received further help and instruction. Long-term follow-up showed that all indices were significantly worse than at the last study recall (P < 0.001).
Professional cleaning of teeth and dentures, with individual instruction, can be recommended to improve oral hygiene. However, the effect decreases over time and renewal of the intervention is necessary.
机构化老年人的口腔卫生和健康状况经常被描述为不充分。
本随机、单盲(结局评估)研究比较了三种改善口腔卫生的干预措施与对照组的效果。目的是调查干预组与对照组之间是否存在显著差异。
招募了居住在德国西南部长期护理院的 106 名参与者,并将其随机分为四组——三组治疗组和一组对照组。所有三组治疗组均接受专业的牙齿和假牙清洁,并给予个性化指导。其中一组还由牙医进行再指导和再激励(n = 27)。一组还接受了接受过口腔卫生教育的工作人员的帮助和激励(n = 26)。第三组治疗组在专业清洁牙齿和假牙后未进行再激励(n = 26)。对照组未进行干预(n = 23)。主要目标临床数据为平均菌斑(菌斑控制记录,O'Leary)、牙龈出血(Ainamo/Bay)和义齿卫生指数。为评估干预组与对照组之间的差异,对每个主要目标变量进行混合模型分析。此外,还在 3 年后的长期随访中评估了目标临床数据。
与对照组相比,在 12 周的时间内,干预组的义齿卫生、菌斑和牙龈出血指数明显较低(重复测量混合模型;P < 0.023)。在三组治疗组中,控制组与各治疗组之间的估计效应相当;然而,即使其中两组接受了进一步的帮助和指导。长期随访显示,所有指数均明显差于最后一次研究回顾(P < 0.001)。
专业清洁牙齿和假牙,并给予个性化指导,可以推荐用于改善口腔卫生。然而,效果随时间推移而减弱,需要更新干预措施。