COMPARISON OF DENTAL STATUS AND ORAL FUNCTION BETWEEN THE ELDERLY WITH AND WITHOUT TEMPOROMANDIBULAR DISORDERS
Original Article
Table 2 . Comparisons of periodontal status between the TMD and non- TMD elderly .
Variable
TMD ( n = 146 )
Non-TMD ( n = 112 ) p-value
Gingival bleeding Number of |
135 ( 92.5 ) |
110 ( 98.2 ) |
0.467 |
participants (%) |
|
|
|
Mean number of teeth |
18.3 ± 10.2 |
21.0 ± 8.7 |
0.023 * c |
Prevalence of participants having highest score of PPD |
PPD 0 – 3 mm |
15 ( 10.7 ) |
15 ( 13.4 ) |
0.514 |
PPD 4 – 5 mm |
46 ( 32.9 ) |
50 ( 44.6 ) |
0.056 |
PPD ≥ 6 mm |
78 ( 55.7 ) |
47 ( 42.0 ) |
0.030 * a |
Mean number of teeth present with PPD |
PPD 0 – 3 mm |
12.3 ± 10.2 |
14.4 ± 9.7 |
0.085 |
PPD 4 – 5 mm |
7.3 ± 7.9 |
8.3 ± 8.1 |
0.342 |
PPD ≥ 6 mm |
1.0 ± 3.6 |
0.6 ± 1.7 |
0.210 |
Prevalence of participants having highest score of CAL |
CAL 0 – 3 mm |
2 ( 1.4 ) |
12 ( 10.7 ) |
0.001 * b |
CAL 4 – 5 mm |
38 ( 26.0 ) |
42 ( 37.5 ) |
0.048 * a |
CAL ≥ 6 mm |
45 ( 30.8 ) |
25 ( 22.3 ) |
0.128 |
Excluded sextants |
61 ( 41.8 ) |
33 ( 29.5 ) |
0.042 * a |
Mean number of sextants with CAL and excluded sextants |
CAL 0 – 3 mm |
0.9 ± 1.4 |
1.5 ± 2.0 |
0.021 * c |
CAL 4 – 5 mm |
2.4 ± 2.0 |
2.7 ± 2.2 |
0.184 |
CAL ≥ 6 mm |
1.5 ± 1.7 |
1.0 ± 1.7 |
0.100 |
Excluded sextants |
1.2 ± 1.8 |
0.8 ± 1.4 |
0.037 * c |
|
a b c *
Chi-square test , Fisher ’ s exact test , Student ’ s to-test ,
|
statistically significant . |
PPD : Periodontal pocket depth ; CAL : Clinical attachment loss . |
teeth ( 89.7 % and 98.2 %, p = 0.009 ) and decayed teeth ( 82.2 % and 96.4 %, p < 0.001 ). The number of missing teeth was statistically higher in the TMD group ( 9.6 ± 8.6 teeth ) than in the non-TMD group ( 7.6 ± 6.4 , p = 0.036 , Table 1 ). Regarding periodontal status , gingival bleeding was detected at 18.3 ± 10.2 teeth in the TMD group , which was lower than 21.0 ± 8.7 teeth in the non-TMD group ( p = 0.023 ). The prevalence of older adults with PPD ≥ 6 mm was higher in the TMD group ( 55.7 %) than in the non-TMD group ( 42 %, p = 0.030 ). Concerning clinical attachment loss , occurrences of CAL 4 – 5 mm was 37.5 % for the non-TMD group and 26.0 % for the TMD group ( p = 0.048 ); whereas , a high prevalence of excluded sextants was significantly related to the TMD group ( 41.8 %, p = 0.042 ). The mean number of sextants with CAL 0 – 3 mm was 0.9 ± 1.4 in the non-TMD group , which was statistically lower than 1.5 ± 2.0 sextants of the non-TMD group ( p = 0.021 ); however , the TMD group had more excluded sextants ( 1.3 ± 1.8 ) than the non-TMD group ( 0.7 ± 1.4 , p = 0.037 ). Comparing the functional limitations of mastication revealed no differences between the TMD and non- TMD group . Most participants in the TMD elderly group had masticatory limitations related to chewing tough food ( 82.2 %), followed by chewing chicken ( 69.2 %), and chewing hard bread ( 66.4 %); the results for the non-TMD group were 75.9 %, 64.3 %, and 56.3 %, respectively . The mean score ( standard error ) of each
Table 3 . Comparisons of functional limitations of masticatory system between the TMD and non-TMD elderly .
Mastication Mandibular mobility Verbal and emotional expression
Functional limitation
TMD ( n = 146 )
Non-TMD ( n = 112 ) p- value a
No . % No . % Chew tough food 120 82.2 85 75.9 0.215 Chew hard bread 97 66.4 63 56.3 0.095 Chew chicken 101 69.2 72 64.3 0.407 Chew crackers 62 42.5 46 41.1 0.822 Chew soft food 35 24.0 27 24.1 0.980
Eat soft food requiring no chewing
17 11.6 15 13.4 0.673
Number of limitation items ( maximum = 6 ) b 3.0 ± 1.9 2.8 ± 2.1 0.400
Mean score of each item ( SE ) b 2.55 ( 0.17 ) 2.26 ( 0.19 ) 0.264
Open wide enough to bite from a whole apple
Open wide enough to bite into a sandwich
26 17.8 18 16.1 0.713
34 23.3 26 23.2 0.989
Open wide enough to talk 27 18.5 21 18.8 0.958
Open wide enough to drink from a cup
26 17.8 19 17.0 0.859
Number of limitation items ( maximum = 4 ) b 0.8 ± 1.5 0.8 ± 1.4 0.896
Mean score of each item ( SE ) b 0.49 ( 0.09 ) 0.43 ( 0.08 ) 0.659
Talk 11 7.5 11 9.8 0.514
Sing 25 17.1 19 17.0 0.973 Putting on a happy face 12 8.2 11 9.8 0.654 Putting on an angry face 12 8.2 12 10.7 0.494 Frown 15 10.3 13 11.6 0.733 Kiss 14 9.6 10 8.9 0.856 Smile 23 15.8 17 15.2 0.899 Laugh 15 10.3 14 12.5 0.575
Number of limitation items ( maximum = 8 ) b ± 2.1 1.0 ± 2.2 0.752
Mean number of each item ( SE ) b 0.23 ( 0.05 ) 0.21 ( 0.05 ) 0.774
Swallow 19 13.0 14 12.5 0.903 Yawn 22 15.1 17 15.2 0.980
Number of limitation items in JFLS-20 b 4.9 ± 4.9 4.7 ± 5.4 0.815
Total score of JFLS-20 ± SD b 19.8 ± 18.6 17.6 ± 17.6 0.348 a
Chi-square test , b Student ’ s t-test . TMD : Temporomandibular disorders , SE : standard error , JFLS-20 : 20-item Jaw Functional Limitation Scale .
of the masticatory items was 2.55 ( 0.17 ) for the TMD group , compared to 2.26 ( 0.19 ) for the non-TMD group ( p = 0.260 ). The prevalence of limitations of mandibular mobility ranged from 17.8 % to 23.3 % in the TMD group , which were similar with the variation of 16.1 % to 23.2 % in the non-TMD group ( p > 0.05 ). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding limitations of verbal and emotional expression . The total score of JFLS-20 was 19.8 ± 18.6 in the TMD group and 17.6 ± 17.6 in the non-TMD group ( p = 0.348 , Table 3 ). There were significant differences in the prevalence of parafunctional activities between the TMD and non-TMD groups in terms of “ Hold , tighten , or tense
120
Stoma Edu J . 2018 ; 5 ( 2 ): 118-124 http :// www . stomaeduj . com