4.3 Article

Is prosthodontic treatment age-dependent in patients 60 years and older in Public Dental Services?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 454-459

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12267

关键词

oral health; prosthodontics; oral geriatrics; oral rehabilitation; public dental care

资金

  1. Finnish Dental Society Apollonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prosthodontic treatment is a common procedure for the elderly as tooth loss is a reality in old age. Dentists take care of increasingly older patients with physiological age manifesting as cognitive impairment, frailty or multiple chronic diseases or who have side effects of medicines. We evaluated how patients' age affects prosthodontic treatment choice and whether we could identify the age when a change in practice occurs. In addition, we determined how common the treatment method of fixed prostheses is among patients aged 60years or over in Public Dental Services (PDS) and how common rehabilitation of dentition with new dentures is compared with repair of existing dentures. Our data cover all patients aged 60years and older (n=130060) treated in Helsinki PDS in 2007-2012. Data were aggregated into seven groups: 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, and 90years and over. During the 6-year period, the mean annual number of the population was about 114000 and the mean annual number of patients treated with prosthodontics 1700. Prosthodontic treatment choices (repair, removable prosthodontics, fixed prostheses, fibre-reinforced composite fixed prostheses) vary by age; the older the patient, the rarer fixed or fibre-reinforced composite fixed prostheses and removable prostheses and the more frequent repairs (P<0001). Denture repair was virtually the only treatment that patients over 90years received. Based on our results, the age at which prosthodontic treatment practices in PDS change is around 70years. Beyond this age, fixed prosthodontic treatment modalities are very rare and repairs are more common.

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

4.3
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