The validity of self-reported number of teeth and edentulousness among Norwegian older adults, the HUNT Study.
Cognitive function
Edentulous
Epidemiology
Number of teeth
Older adults
Oral health
Self-report
Tooth count
Validity
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 03 2022
21 03 2022
Historique:
received:
13
12
2021
accepted:
09
03
2022
entrez:
22
3
2022
pubmed:
23
3
2022
medline:
10
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Number of teeth is an established indicator of oral health and is commonly self-reported in epidemiological studies due to the costly and labor-intensive nature of clinical examinations. Although previous studies have found self-reported number of teeth to be a reasonably accurate measure, its accuracy among older adults ≥ 70 years is less explored. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported number of teeth and edentulousness in older adults and to investigate factors that may affect the accuracy of self-reports. This study included two different samples of older adults ≥ 70 years drawn from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study (the HUNT Study), Norway. Sample 1 (n = 586) was used to evaluate the validity of self-reported number of teeth and sample 2 (n = 518) was used to evaluate self-reported edentulousness. Information on number of teeth and background variables (education, smoking, cognitive function, and self-perceived general and oral health) were self-reported in questionnaires, while clinical oral health examinations assessed number of teeth, number of teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics and edentulousness. Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plot, chi-square test and kappa statistics were used to assess the agreement between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth. The mean difference between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth was low (- 0.22 teeth), and more than 70% of the participants reported their number of teeth within an error of two teeth. Correlations between self-reports and clinical examinations were high for the total sample (0.86 (Spearman) and 0.91 (Pearson)). However, a lower correlation was found among participants with dementia (0.74 (Spearman) and 0.85 (Pearson)), participants having ≥ 20 teeth (0.76 (Spearman) and 0.67 (Pearson)), and participants with ≥ 5 teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics (0.75 (Spearman) and 0.77 (Pearson)). Self-reports of having teeth or being edentulous were correct in 96.3% of the cases (kappa value 0.93, p value < 0.001). Among older Norwegian adults, self-reported number of teeth agreed closely with clinical tooth counts and nearly all the edentulous participants correctly reported having no teeth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Number of teeth is an established indicator of oral health and is commonly self-reported in epidemiological studies due to the costly and labor-intensive nature of clinical examinations. Although previous studies have found self-reported number of teeth to be a reasonably accurate measure, its accuracy among older adults ≥ 70 years is less explored. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported number of teeth and edentulousness in older adults and to investigate factors that may affect the accuracy of self-reports.
METHODS
This study included two different samples of older adults ≥ 70 years drawn from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study (the HUNT Study), Norway. Sample 1 (n = 586) was used to evaluate the validity of self-reported number of teeth and sample 2 (n = 518) was used to evaluate self-reported edentulousness. Information on number of teeth and background variables (education, smoking, cognitive function, and self-perceived general and oral health) were self-reported in questionnaires, while clinical oral health examinations assessed number of teeth, number of teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics and edentulousness. Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plot, chi-square test and kappa statistics were used to assess the agreement between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth.
RESULTS
The mean difference between self-reported and clinically recorded number of teeth was low (- 0.22 teeth), and more than 70% of the participants reported their number of teeth within an error of two teeth. Correlations between self-reports and clinical examinations were high for the total sample (0.86 (Spearman) and 0.91 (Pearson)). However, a lower correlation was found among participants with dementia (0.74 (Spearman) and 0.85 (Pearson)), participants having ≥ 20 teeth (0.76 (Spearman) and 0.67 (Pearson)), and participants with ≥ 5 teeth restored or replaced by fixed prosthodontics (0.75 (Spearman) and 0.77 (Pearson)). Self-reports of having teeth or being edentulous were correct in 96.3% of the cases (kappa value 0.93, p value < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Among older Norwegian adults, self-reported number of teeth agreed closely with clinical tooth counts and nearly all the edentulous participants correctly reported having no teeth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35313882
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02116-2
pii: 10.1186/s12903-022-02116-2
pmc: PMC8935783
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Scand J Public Health. 2021 Apr 28;:14034948211011796
pubmed: 33908292
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 Aug;42(4):968-77
pubmed: 22879362
J Dent Res. 2014 Jul;93(7 Suppl):20S-28S
pubmed: 24947899
J Investig Clin Dent. 2010 Nov;1(2):79-84
pubmed: 25427261
BMC Oral Health. 2016 Jul 15;17(1):17
pubmed: 27422287
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Nov 05;8:126
pubmed: 21050499
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 May 07;8:621626
pubmed: 34026863
BMC Oral Health. 2018 May 31;18(1):93
pubmed: 29855283
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Dec 11;18(1):210
pubmed: 30538003
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 30;6(8):e012386
pubmed: 27577588
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Sep 14;12:143
pubmed: 22978749
Spec Care Dentist. 2002 Sep-Oct;22(5):181-6
pubmed: 12580356
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;49(1):55-62
pubmed: 32918289
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995 Dec;23(6):365-8
pubmed: 8681520
J Oral Rehabil. 2018 May;45(5):393-398
pubmed: 29420835
J Clin Periodontol. 2020 Sep;47(9):1053-1063
pubmed: 32621350
J Periodontol. 2019 Jan;90(1):90-97
pubmed: 30007047
J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Apr;62(2):134-151
pubmed: 28869174
Arch Neurol. 2003 Nov;60(11):1585-9
pubmed: 14623731
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Aug;29(8):104873
pubmed: 32689647
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2021 Feb 24;13:51-57
pubmed: 33658862
Int Dent J. 2017 Sep;67 Suppl 2:7-13
pubmed: 29023743
Gerodontology. 2019 Jun;36(2):171-179
pubmed: 30821850
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002 Dec;30(6):431-7
pubmed: 12453114
J Dent. 2019 Jun;85:73-80
pubmed: 31085349
J Public Health Dent. 2002 Spring;62(2):122-8
pubmed: 11989207
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 09;17(7):
pubmed: 32283707
BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jun 4;19(1):99
pubmed: 31164110
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991 Oct;19(5):249-51
pubmed: 1742986
J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;79(3):1213-1226
pubmed: 33427745
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571