4.4 Article

Periodontal conditions among adults in Southern Thailand

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 156-163

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0765.2003.00367.x

关键词

epidemiology; periodontal disease; attachment loss; Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the periodontal conditions among 30-39- and 50-59-year-old rural Thais from the Province of Songkhla, Southern Thailand. Methods: A total of 359 dentate persons were given a clinical examination comprising recordings of plaque and calculus in six teeth, and bleeding on probing. attachment level and pocket depth in six sites of all teeth present, except third molars. The same examiner carried out all examinations. Information on religious faith, smoking habits and use of betel was obtained by interview. A subset consisting of 60 persons was reexamined for attachment level 6 months later by another examiner. Results: The oral hygiene conditions were poor with abundant amounts of both plaque and calculus. Gingival bleeding was essentially ubiquitous. The prevalence of attachment loss greater than or equal to 4 mm was 92% among 30-39-year-olds and 100% among 50-59-year-olds. The average percentage of sites affected in the two age groups was 23.9% and 63.9%. Pockets greater than or equal to 4 mm were seen in 84% of the 30-39-year-olds and in 93% of the 50-59-year-olds. Older age, Thai Buddhist faith and a high percentage of sites with calculus were significant positive predictors of a high percentage of sites with attachment loss greater than or equal to 4 mm, whereas older age and Thai Buddhist faith were the only statistically significant predictors of a high percentage of sites with attachment loss greater than or equal to 7 mm. Conclusion: The results indicate that this Thai population may have more widespread and severe periodontal destruction than other Asian populations, but failed to confirm the contention that Muslim faith is associated with more severe periodontal destruction.

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

4.4
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