Noreen Myers-Wright1, Bin Cheng2, Sima N Tafreshi3, Ira B Lamster4. 1. Department of Health Policy & Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. North Shore Manhasset Dental Clinic, Northwell Health System, Great Neck, NY, USA. 4. School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One approach to addressing oral health disparities for at-risk populations has been to increase discussion of oral health by non-dental healthcare providers. This study examined the accuracy of a simple instrument to detect individuals with a history of dental disease, which would then allow referral for an oral health evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-question instrument was evaluated for the relationship to oral diseases, periodontal disease, and decayed, missing and filled teeth in 391 individuals seen in a dental school clinic for non-emergent dental care over a 3-month period. Clinical dental findings were used as outcome variables. The oral health parameters were dichotomised, using different levels of disease severity. The criteria were increased and decreased in an effort to test the robustness of our method. RESULTS: While the sensitivity outcomes with one question alone showed significant ability to predict oral disease (59-71%), the addition of a second self-assessment question increased the sensitivity (76-91%) for all oral health parameters studied. As the criteria for oral disease increased so did the sensitivity of this instrument. CONCLUSION: The results presented here offer evidence that a simple two-item questionnaire is an efficient and effective method of detecting populations at-risk for oral diseases.
BACKGROUND: One approach to addressing oral health disparities for at-risk populations has been to increase discussion of oral health by non-dental healthcare providers. This study examined the accuracy of a simple instrument to detect individuals with a history of dental disease, which would then allow referral for an oral health evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-question instrument was evaluated for the relationship to oral diseases, periodontal disease, and decayed, missing and filled teeth in 391 individuals seen in a dental school clinic for non-emergent dental care over a 3-month period. Clinical dental findings were used as outcome variables. The oral health parameters were dichotomised, using different levels of disease severity. The criteria were increased and decreased in an effort to test the robustness of our method. RESULTS: While the sensitivity outcomes with one question alone showed significant ability to predict oral disease (59-71%), the addition of a second self-assessment question increased the sensitivity (76-91%) for all oral health parameters studied. As the criteria for oral disease increased so did the sensitivity of this instrument. CONCLUSION: The results presented here offer evidence that a simple two-item questionnaire is an efficient and effective method of detecting populations at-risk for oral diseases.
Authors: P I Eke; B A Dye; L Wei; G D Slade; G O Thornton-Evans; J D Beck; G W Taylor; W S Borgnakke; R C Page; R J Genco Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.116