4.5 Article

Dental status and oral health of patients with epilepsy:: An epidemiologic study

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 44, Issue 8, Pages 1103-1108

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.04003.x

Keywords

epilepsy; oral health; dental; periodontal; prosthetic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We performed a dental survey of epilepsy, patients to examine their oral health by statistical means and to provide a guide for the dental treatment of these patients. Methods: We first set up four dental subgroups of epilepsy patients, based on the types of seizures, seizure frequency, and mental state. One hundred one patients underwent a survey concerning their dental, medical, and epilepsy histories, followed by a dental examination. Indexes quantifying oral hygiene, the number and condition of the remaining teeth, periodontium, and the degree of prosthetic treatment were measured. An age-matched control group of general (nonepilepsy) population underwent an identical dental examination. Statistical comparison was performed between the patient and the control groups and between subgroups of epilepsy patients. Results: In almost all aspects of oral health and dental status, patients with epilepsy showed a significantly worse condition compared with the control group. Comparison of the subgroups of epilepsy patients revealed that the most severe findings concern patients who have poorly controlled epilepsy, especially those who have frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures. Conclusions: The observed difference probably results from a combination of factors such as the effect of the seizures themselves, socioeconomic conditions, and the negative attitude of dentists. We recommend that the planning of dental treatment of such patients should start with the assessment of their disease and determination of the dental subgroup to which they belong. For each subgroup, specific recommendations for interventions are given.

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