4.5 Article

A 24-year follow-up of root filled teeth and periapical health amongst middle aged and elderly women in Goteborg, Sweden

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 246-254

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00944.x

Keywords

cross-sectional; endodontic; epidemiology; longitudinal; oral health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To describe the endodontic status amongst middle-aged and elderly women longitudinally and cross-sectionally over 24 years. Methodology A random sample of 1462 women 38, 46, 50, 54 and 60 years old, living in Goteborg, Sweden, were sampled in 1968 for medical and dental examinations with a participation rate of 90.1%. The same women were re-examined in 1980 and 1992 together with new 38- and 50-year-old women. The dental examination consisted of questionnaires, clinical and panoramic radiological survey (OPG). The number of teeth, number of root filled teeth (RF) and number of teeth with periapical radiolucencies (PA) were registered. The RF and PA ratios were calculated. Cross-sectional data were analysed by means of ANOVA and longitudinal data by a general linear model for repeated measures. Sample prevalences were compared and statistical inferences were made with the chi-squared test. In all analysis, the confidence interval (CI) regarded mean difference between groups (95% CI). Results The RF and PA ratio decreased over time as well as the frequency of edentulous subjects. Cross-sectional analysis revealed a minor increase in frequency of RF and PA and loss of teeth with age. Longitudinally, loss of teeth was evident in all cohorts. In addition, there was a trend of lower number of teeth with PA, and the RF ratio increased with age. Conclusions The prevalence of periapical disease did not increase with age, probably as a result of root canal treatment and extractions. Data showed that the prevalence of RF teeth and teeth with PA decreased for comparable age cohorts during the 24-year follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available