4.5 Article

Objective and subjective oral health care needs among adults with various disabilities

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages 1869-1878

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0879-x

Keywords

Oral health; Special care; Disabilities; Adults; Epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study explored the objective and subjective oral health care needs and the association between both among Belgian adults with disabilities. A two-stage sampling methodology was used to select a sample of adults (22-65 years old) with disabilities, from various types of residential settings, day care centers, and sheltered workplaces and spread over the ten provinces. Oral screenings were performed by 28 trained dentists; subjective oral health care needs were collected through questionnaires. Seven hundred seven adults with disabilities were recruited; from 656 (93 %), permission was obtained for an oral examination. In 467 (78 %) and 407 (68 %) participants, dental plaque and calculus, respectively, were observed. In 343 (56 %) participants, untreated caries lesions (into dentine) were recorded; 203 (33 %) participants had 20 or less teeth. The prosthetic replacement of missing teeth was poor. Exactly 228 (40 %) participants stated that they had a problem in the oral region, and 264 (48 %) indicated that they were in need of an appointment with a dentist. Barriers to consult a dentist were reported by 244 (42 %); fear (n = 87; 37 %), followed by financial and transportation problems (both, n = 68; 29 %), was the most frequently reported barrier. The preventive as well as curative oral care needs in Belgian adults with various forms of disabilities are very high. Efforts to tackle these vast oral health care needs should take into account the differences in needs and demands between subgroups and should comprise the improvement of access to proper care.

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