Impact of Different Prosthodontic Treatment Modalities on Nutritional Parameters of Elderly Patients

Risk factors for root caries annual incidence and progression among older people requiring nursing care: A one-year prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine root caries annual incidence (RCAI) and root caries annual progression (RCAP) and risk factors for them among older people requiring nursing care.

METHODS

The target population comprised 186 dentate individuals aged ≥ 65 years who required nursing care while living in nursing homes (NHs) or their own homes (OHs) in Okayama, Japan. Survey items included presence/absence and severity of root caries, age, sex, living environment (NH or OH), the Clinical Dementia Rating, and the Barthel Index (BI). Baseline surveys were conducted from 2015 to 2017; subjects were followed up for one year. RCAI and RCAP per tooth and per person were calculated, and risk factors for them were identified using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

In total, 104 individuals (mean age: 82.0 ± 12.4 years) completed the follow-up survey. RCAIs per tooth and per person were 14.6% (173/1188) and 59.6% (62/104), respectively. RCAP per tooth was 22.5% (51/227 teeth with root caries at baseline). Significant risk factors for RCAI were living environment (OH, odds ratio [OR]: 2.14), sex (male, OR: 1.84), clasped tooth (OR: 1.82), and older age (OR: 1.05) at baseline. Significant risk factors for RCAP were sex (male, OR: 5.20), regular dental checkup (OR: 2.74), and high BI score (OR: 1.02) at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

At one-year follow-up, 59.6% of the subjects developed at least one root caries. Risk factors for RCAI were living environment (OH), male, clasped tooth, and older age, whereas those for RCAP were male, regular dental checkup, and high BI score.

Occlusal support is associated with nutritional improvement and recovery of physical function in patients recovering from hip fracture

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the association between occlusal support and nutritional improvement and recovery of activities of daily living (ADLs) among elderly patients recovering from hip fracture.

BACKGROUND

Many patients with hip fracture are malnourished, and malnutrition is associated with poor functional outcomes. Poor oral status is one reason for malnutrition because loss of occlusal support leads to masticatory disorders and can cause nutrient deficiencies.

METHODS

We evaluated 202 elderly patients aged 65 years and older (mean age, 84.9 ± 7.9 years). We assessed nutritional status using the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form and ADLs using functional independence measure (FIM) scores. Occlusal support was recorded in accordance with the Eichner Index. We categorised participants into two groups according to the presence or absence of occlusal support, and statistical analyses were performed to investigate the differences between the groups.

RESULTS

One group contained 152 participants (mean age, 85.5 ± 7.4 years) with occlusal support, and the other group contained 50 participants (mean age, 83.0 ± 8.9 years) without occlusal support. The group with occlusal support had greater gain of FIM and higher FIM efficiency than did the other group. Multivariate analyses showed that occlusal support was independently associated with nutritional improvement [odds ratio (OR) = 4.00, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.90-8.43] and motor FIM efficiency (R²  = .338, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that occlusal support is associated with nutritional improvement and the recovery of ADLs in patients recovering from hip fracture.

Final-impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures

BACKGROUND

Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments).

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.Overall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.Complete denturesTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.One study (10 participants) evaluated two stage-two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared two stage-two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.Three studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Removable partial denturesOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.