StomatologyEduJ 5(1) SEJ_5_2_site | Page 55

I [15], our previous study revealed that 56.6% (n = 146) of the total sample were diagnosed with TMD (TMD group) and 43.4% (n = 112) were free of TMD (non- TMD group) [2]. In the current study, the participants of both groups were invited to examine dental status and evaluate oral function. Written informed consent that explained oral examination procedures was obtained from each participant. This study was registered and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Danang University of Medical Technology and Pharmacy (No. 523/CN-DHKTYDDN 2014) and was performed in accordance with the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. 2.1. Clinical examination of dental status The dental status of each participant was examined by using the Decayed Missing Filled Teeth (DMFT) index. The primary caries appeared on the crown or root of a tooth, or secondary carious lesions nest to the restoration was considered a decayed tooth (DT). A missing tooth (MT) was a tooth lost due to caries or any other reason. A filled tooth (FT) was considered with at least one filled surface and without any caries. The DMFT score was the sum of the DT, MT, and FT scores and ranged from 0 to 32. 2.2. Clinical examination of periodontal status Periodontal status was evaluated using the modified Community Periodontal Index (CPI). The modified CPI records two indicators of periodontal status: gingival bleeding and periodontal pockets. All teeth present were probed (6 sites per tooth) to record any presence of bleeding on probing and periodontal pocket depth (PPD). PPD was scored as follows: score 0 (a PPD of 0-3mm, no pocket), score 1 (a PPD of 4–5mm, shallow pocket), and score 2 (a PPD of ≥ 6mm, deep pocket). 2.3. Clinical examination of clinical attachment loss (CAL) CAL estimates accumulated lifetime destruction of the periodontal attachment. CAL was measured from the cementoenamel junction to gingival sulcus or pocket at 6 sites per index tooth of each sextant. The CAL severity was recorded based on the highest CAL score of the index tooth as follows: score 0 (CAL 0–3 mm), score 1 (CAL 4–5 mm), score 2 (CAL ≥ 6 mm). The sextant was excluded if there were less than two teeth present. The first author conducted procedure of dental and periodontal examination according to the WHO’s Oral Health Survey guidelines (2013). A pilot study of a group of 25 elderly people was performed to calibrate the examiner before the study was carried out. Ten percent of the participants were re-examined after three days to test the reliability of the examination procedure. The calculated Kappa-values were above 0.85, indicating a high degree of intra-examiner and inter-examination reliability. 2.4. Evaluation of oral function All participants were interviewed face-to-face on the functional limitations of their masticatory system based on the 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale Stomatology Edu Journal Table 1. Comparisons of dental caries status between the TMD and non- TMD elderly participants. Variable TMD (n = 146) Non-TMD (n = 112) p-value Sound teeth Number of subjects 131 110 Percent % 89.7 98.2 0.009 *a 15.5 ± 9.4 17.6 ± 8.7 0.070 Mean number of teeth Decayed teeth Number of subjects 120 108 Percent % 82.2 96.4 < 0.001 *a 6.3 ± 5.6 6.5 ± 5.4 0.684 Mean number of teeth Missing teeth Number of subjects 134 106 Percent % 91.8 94.6 0.463 9.6 ± 8.6 7.6 ± 6.4 0.036 *b Mean number of teeth Filled teeth Number of subjects 12 10 Percent % 8.3 8.9 1.000 0.2 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 1.1 0.710 Mean number of teeth Caries experience Number of subjects 143 111 Percent % 97.9 99.1 0.635 16.0 ± 9.5 14.4 ± 8.7 0.152 Mean DMFT a Fisher’s exact test, b Student t-test, * statistically significant TMD: Temporomandibular disorders, DMFT: Decayed Missing Filled Teeth COMPARISON OF DENTAL STATUS AND ORAL FUNCTION BETWEEN THE ELDERLY WITH AND WITHOUT TEMPOROMANDIBULAR DISORDERS (JFLS-20) [13] and the frequency of parafunctional behaviours based on the 21-item Oral Behaviour Checklist (OBC-21) [14]. JFLS-20 assesses the limitation of mastication (6 items), mandibular mobility (4 items), verbal and emotional expression communication items (8 items), swallowing, and yawning. Each item was scored on a scale of 0–10 points (10 points = the most limited mandibular function). OBC-21 determines the frequency of oral parafunctional activities during sleep and waking hours. Each item was scored from 0 (never) to 4 (all the time). In the current study, each item on the JFLS-20 and OBC-21 surveys was categorised as No (score = 0) and Yes (score ≥ 1). The data was analysed using Version 17.0 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA). The comparisons of dental status, the frequency of parafunctional behaviours, and functional limitations of the masticatory system between the two groups was performed using Chi- square test and Student’s t-test. A confidence level of 95% and a two-sided p-value of < 0.05 were used to reveal significant differences. 3. Results Prevalence of DMFT was 97.9% in the TMD group and 99.1% in the non-TMD group (p = 0.635). There were significant differences in prevalence between the TMD and the non-TMD groups in terms of sound 119