4.5 Article

Type 2 diabetes and oral health - A comparison between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects

Journal

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 27-34

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8227(00)00159-5

Keywords

type 2 diabetes; oral health; periodontal disease; dental caries; xerostomia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A controlled cross-sectional study with the aim of studying oral health in patients with type 2 diabetes was carried out in a health care district in Sweden. The study included 102 randomly sampled diabetic patients and 102 age- and gender-matched non-diabetic subjects from the same geographical area, treated at the same Public Dental Service clinics. Oral conditions were measured at clinical and X-ray examinations. Diabetes-related variables were extracted from medical records. Diabetic patients suffered from xerostomia (dry mouth) to a significantly higher degree than non-diabetic controls did (53.5 vs. 28.4%; P = 0.0003). Sites with advanced periodontitis were more frequent in the diabetic group (P = 0.006) as were initial caries lesions (P = 0.02). Diabetic subjects showed a greater need of periodontal treatment (P = 0.05), caries prevention (P = 0.002) and prosthetic corrections (P = 0.004). Diabetes duration or metabolic control of the disease was not related to periodontal status. However, patients with longer duration of diabetes had more manifest caries lesions (P = 0.05) as had those on insulin treatment when compared with patients on oral/diet or combined treatment (P = 0.0001). The conclusion is that individuals with type 2 diabetes in some oral conditions exhibited poorer health. Close collaboration between the patient. the primary health care and oral health professionals could be a way of improving the diabetic patient's general and oral health. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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