OBJECTIVES: To establish the nature of research into dental health undertaken in prisons. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched electronically. This process was supplemented by hand searching of references. DATA SELECTION: Two independent reviewers made initial selections and subsequently carried out full text screening. Discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer and disagreements were resolved by consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: Fifty potentially relevant studies were identified and further screened for inclusion. Of this number, 29 studies were excluded; the remaining 21 were deemed appropriate to include in the review. The primary focus of the papers identified was the oral health status of inmates, assessed by clinical examinations of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and periodontal status, and self-report measures of oral health behaviours and service utilisation. Attempts were made to reduce sources of bias by selecting random samples of inmates and standardising measurement techniques, and addressing potential confounding effects. Few studies considered the potential impact of socio-economic status on disease levels. In some studies the oral health of inmate populations was compared to that of non-institutionalised individuals. Studies report high prevalence of oral disease, though precise levels differ according to the composition of the samples. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of populations studied and methods of assessment precludes simple generalisation, but the consistent trend appears to be that the oral health status of inmates is poor and also poor in comparison with non-institutionalised individuals where appropriate comparisons have been made.
OBJECTIVES: To establish the nature of research into dental health undertaken in prisons. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched electronically. This process was supplemented by hand searching of references. DATA SELECTION: Two independent reviewers made initial selections and subsequently carried out full text screening. Discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer and disagreements were resolved by consensus. DATA EXTRACTION: Fifty potentially relevant studies were identified and further screened for inclusion. Of this number, 29 studies were excluded; the remaining 21 were deemed appropriate to include in the review. The primary focus of the papers identified was the oral health status of inmates, assessed by clinical examinations of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) and periodontal status, and self-report measures of oral health behaviours and service utilisation. Attempts were made to reduce sources of bias by selecting random samples of inmates and standardising measurement techniques, and addressing potential confounding effects. Few studies considered the potential impact of socio-economic status on disease levels. In some studies the oral health of inmate populations was compared to that of non-institutionalised individuals. Studies report high prevalence of oral disease, though precise levels differ according to the composition of the samples. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of populations studied and methods of assessment precludes simple generalisation, but the consistent trend appears to be that the oral health status of inmates is poor and also poor in comparison with non-institutionalised individuals where appropriate comparisons have been made.
Authors: Meredith M D'Amore; Debbie M Cheng; Nancy R Kressin; Judith Jones; Jeffrey H Samet; Michael Winter; Theresa W Kim; Richard Saitz Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2011-04-06
Authors: Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti; Iris Sant Anna Araujo Rodrigues; Ingrid Thays de Melo Silveira; Thaliny Batista Sarmento de Oliveira; Magaly Suenya de Almeida Pinto; Alidianne Fabia Cabral Xavier; Ricardo Dias de Castro; Wilton Wilney Nascimento Padilha Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 3.390