4.1 Article

A comparison of the dental health of Brazilian and Canadian independently living elderly

Journal

GERODONTOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 258-265

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2009.00340.x

Keywords

independent elders; dental status; socioeconomic status; quality of life

Funding

  1. Foundation for Post-Graduate Education (CAPES), Ministry of Education, Brasilia, DF, Brazil [0267/08-2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the dental status of Brazilian and Canadian elderly populations with respect to socioeconomic and quality of life factors. Materials and methods: A total of 496 adults aged 60-75 years, having four or more teeth, and physically and cognitively suitable for a clinical oral examination were included. Subjects answered questions concerning their lifestyle and completed the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) questionnaire. Results: In all populations, the majority were females, aged between 60 and 65 years and married. Although the Canadian New Immigrant population had lower mean income, they had more remaining teeth (23.04 +/- 6.1), more functional teeth (sound and restored teeth) (14.92 +/- 5.7), more sound teeth (15.40 +/- 7.6), but more carious teeth (2.97 +/- 3.0). The Brazilian population had higher numbers of restored teeth (12.26 +/- 6.8) and fewer remaining teeth (17.80 +/- 7.6). In all populations, females, married and younger (60-65 years old) adults were more likely to retain 20 or more teeth. The mean GOHAI scores were similar for Canadians (40.55 +/- 5.7) and Canadian New Immigrants (39.28 +/- 6.5), but were higher than that among Brazilians (31.97 +/- 8.9). Conclusions: The numbers of remaining teeth were related to greater education and higher income status for Brazilian and Canadian populations. However, Canadian New Immigrants with lower income and education retained more teeth than the other populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available