METHODS: A subset of elderly (≥65year) participants from the UK Adult Dental Health Survey 2009 data was used. OHRQoL was assessed by means of the OHIP-14 additive score. The number of missing teeth; presence of active caries, dental pain, root caries, tooth wear, periodontal pockets>4mm, loss of attachment>9mm; having PUFA>0 (presence of severely decayed teeth with visible pulpal involvement, ulceration caused by dislocated tooth fragments, fistula and abscess); and wearing a denture were used as predictor variables. Age, gender, marital status, education level, occupation and presence of any long standing illness were used as control variables. Multivariate zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis was performed using R-project statistical software.
RESULTS: A total of 1277 elderly participants were included. The weighted mean(SE) OHIP-14 score of these participants was 2.95 (0.17). Having active caries (IRR=1.37, CI=1.25;1.50), PUFA>0 (IRR=1.17, CI=1.05;1.31), dental pain (IRR=1.34, CI=1.20;1.50), and wearing dentures (IRR=1.30, CI=1.17;1.44), were significantly positively associated with OHIP-14 score. Having periodontal pockets>4mm, at least one bleeding site, and anterior tooth wear were not significantly associated with the OHIP-14 score.
CONCLUSION: Whereas previous research has suggested a moderate relationship between oral disease and quality of life in this large scale survey of older adults, the presence of active caries and the presence of one or more of the PUFA indicators are associated with impaired oral health related quality of life in older adults, but not indicators of periodontal status. The implication of this is that whilst focussing on prevention of disease, there is an ongoing need for oral health screening and treatment in this group.
METHODS: Following a registered protocol, a modified e-Delphi study was applied over two rounds with a final consensus meeting. The threshold of consensus was set a priori at 75%. Agreed techniques were then categorized by four coders, according to behavioural learning theory, to sort techniques according to their mechanism of action.
RESULTS: The panel (n = 35) agreed on 42 DBS techniques from a total of 63 candidate labels and descriptions. Complete agreement was achieved regarding all labels and descriptions, while agreement was not achieved regarding distinctiveness for 17 techniques. In exploring underlying principles of learning, it became clear that multiple and differing principles may apply depending on the specific context and procedure in which the technique may be applied.
DISCUSSION: Experts agreed on what each DBS technique is, what label to use, and their description, but were less likely to agree on what distinguishes one technique from another. All techniques were describable but not comprehensively categorizable according to principles of learning. While objective consistency was not attained, greater clarity and consistency now exists. The resulting list of agreed terminology marks a significant foundation for future efforts towards understanding DBS techniques in research, education and clinical care.