Department of Comprehensive Oral Health, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
J Dent Res. 2020 Aug;99(9):1047-1053. doi: 10.1177/0022034520916151. Epub 2020 Apr 22.
The effect of preventive oral habits is largely unexplored in older individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the associations between home use of flossing and prevalence of periodontal disease and caries in older adults. Five-year incident tooth loss was also evaluated. Data on 686 individuals ≥65 y-old from the Piedmont 65+ Dental Study were examined including: 1) interproximal clinical attachment level (iCAL), 2) interproximal probing depth (iPD), 3) numbers of caries, and 4) missing teeth. Flossing behavior was evaluated according to the Periodontal Profile Class (PPC) system. Five-year follow-up data ( = 375) was evaluated for incident tooth loss. Dichotomous and categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson chi-square tests as well as covariate-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. Multiple linear regression compared clinical parameters based on flossing behavior. Elderly flossers had lower (mean, SE) %iCAL≥3 mm (38.2, 2.38 vs. 48.8, 1.56) and %iPD≥4 mm (8.70, 1.41 vs. 14.4, 0.93) compared to nonflossers ( ≤ 0.005). Flossers showed less coronal caries compared to nonflossers ( = 0.02). Baseline number of missing teeth (mean, SE) was 11.5 (0.35) in nonflossers compared to 8.6 (0.53) in flossers ( < 0.0001). Regular dental visitors had lower oral disease levels compared to episodic dental users. The majority of flossers classified into PPC-Stage I (health) whereas nonflossers classified as PPC-Stages V, VI, and VII (disease). At the 5-y follow-up visit, the average tooth loss for flossers was ~1 tooth compared to ~4 teeth lost for nonflossers ( < 0.0001). Among all teeth, molars showed the highest benefit (>40%) for flossing behavior ( = 0.0005). In conclusion, the extent of oral disease for older individuals was significantly less in flossers than in nonflossers. Flossers showed less periodontal disease, fewer dental caries, and loss of fewer teeth over a 5-y period. These findings further support flossing as an important oral hygiene behavior to prevent oral disease progression in older adults.
预防性口腔习惯对老年人的影响在很大程度上尚未得到探索。本研究旨在评估老年人家庭使用牙线与牙周病和龋齿患病率之间的关系。还评估了 5 年的累计失牙情况。对来自皮埃蒙特 65+牙科研究的 686 名≥65 岁的个体的数据进行了检查,包括:1)邻间临床附着水平(iCAL),2)邻间探诊深度(iPD),3)龋齿数和 4)缺牙数。牙线使用情况根据牙周档案分类(PPC)系统进行评估。对 5 年随访数据(n = 375)进行了分析,以评估累计失牙情况。使用 Pearson 卡方检验以及协变量调整的 Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel 检验分析二分类和分类变量。基于牙线使用情况,多线性回归比较了临床参数。与非牙线使用者相比,老年牙线使用者的 %iCAL≥3mm(38.2,2.38% 比 48.8,1.56%)和 %iPD≥4mm(8.70,1.41% 比 14.4,0.93%)较低(<0.005)。牙线使用者的冠部龋齿明显少于非牙线使用者(=0.02)。非牙线使用者的基线缺牙数(均值,SE)为 11.5(0.35),而牙线使用者为 8.6(0.53)(<0.0001)。定期看牙医的人比偶发性看牙医的人口腔疾病水平低。大多数牙线使用者被归类为 PPC 阶段 I(健康),而非牙线使用者则被归类为 PPC 阶段 V、VI 和 VII(疾病)。在 5 年随访时,牙线使用者的平均失牙数约为 1 颗,而非牙线使用者的失牙数约为 4 颗(<0.0001)。在所有牙齿中,磨牙因牙线使用行为而获益最高(>40%)(=0.0005)。总之,与非牙线使用者相比,牙线使用者的口腔疾病程度明显较低。牙线使用者在 5 年内牙周病、龋齿和牙齿缺失的情况较少。这些发现进一步支持牙线作为一种重要的口腔卫生行为,可以预防老年人的口腔疾病进展。