4.7 Review

Global Burden of Severe Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
卷 93, 期 7, 页码 20-28

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034514537828

关键词

toothless; epidemiology; missing teeth; extracted teeth; global health; edentate

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study has been to systematically produce comparable estimates of the burden of 291 diseases and injuries and their associated 1,160 sequelae from 1990 to 2010. We aimed to report here internally consistent prevalence and incidence estimates of severe tooth loss for all countries, 20 age groups, and both sexes for 1990 and 2010. The systematic search of the literature yielded 5,618 unique citations. After titles and abstracts were screened, 5,285 citations were excluded as clearly not relevant to this systematic review, leaving 333 for full-text review; 265 publications were further excluded following the validity assessment. A total of 68 studies-including 285,746 individuals aged 12 yr or older in 26 countries-were included in the meta-analysis using modeling resources of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study. Between 1990 and 2010, the global age-standardized prevalence of edentate people decreased from 4.4% (95% uncertainty interval: 4.1%, 4.8%) to 2.4% (95% UI: 2.2%, 2.7%), and incidence rate decreased from 374 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% UI: 347, 406) to 205 cases (95% UI: 187, 226). No differences were found by sex in 2010. Prevalence increased gradually with age, showing a steep increase around the seventh decade of life that was associated with a peak in incidence at 65 years. Geographic differences in prevalence, incidence, and rate of improvement from 1990 to 2010 were stark. Our review of available quality literature on the epidemiology of tooth loss shows a significant decline in the prevalence and incidence of severe tooth loss between 1990 and 2010 at the global, regional, and country levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据