| Literature DB >> 34373694 |
Jan Kowar1, Victoria Stenport1,2, Mats Nilsson3, Torsten Jemt1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate if edentulism is associated with all-cause mortality. The aims were to analyze the association between age, socioeconomic factors, and mortality in edentulous patients treated with either removable dentures or implant-supported prostheses.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34373694 PMCID: PMC8349274 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9919732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Figure 1Life table survival curves for all included patients (N = 8463) and for the two subgroups (DG and IG) compared to the reference population at the same age interval during 10 years of follow-up. Difference in mortality compared to the corresponding reference population was significant for all groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 2The difference in 10-year mortality between reference populations and patients treated with (IG, implant group) or without implants (DG, denture group) in different age groups over time. Difference in mortality compared to the corresponding reference population was significant for all groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Distribution of 8463 edentulous patients with regard to age in both study groups (denture group, DG/implant group, IG).
Figure 4Flowchart of included edentulous patients.
Multivariable logistic analysis of edentulous patients treated with implants (IG = 2.192 patients) or not (DG = 6.271 patients).
| IG ( | DG ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI |
| OR | 95% CI |
| |
|
| ||||||
| ≤59 years | 1.0 | <0.0001 | 1.0 | <0.0001 | ||
| 60–79 years | 4.0 | 3.3–5.3 | 3.4 | 2.9–4.0 | ||
| ≥80 years | 16.3 | 10.1–26.2 | 16.0 | 13.0–19.7 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Male | 1.0 | <0.0001 | 1.0 | <0.0001 | ||
| Female | 0.6 | 0.5–0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6–0.8 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Tertiary | Excluded after univariable analyses | |||||
| Secondary | ||||||
| Primary | ||||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| High | 1.0 | <0.0001 | 1.0 | <0.0001 | ||
| Intermediate | 1.9 | 1.6–2.3 | 1.6 | 1.3–1.8 | ||
| Low | 3.6 | 2.6–5.3 | 4.4 | 3.6–5.3 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Predominately rural | Excluded after univariable analyses | 1.0 | <0.05 | |||
| Intermediate | 1.2 | 1.0–1.3 | ||||
| Predominately urban | 1.3 | 1.0–1.5 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Abroad | 1.0 | 1.1–2.0 | 0.004 | 1.0 | 1.5–2.0 | <0.0001 |
| Sweden | 1.5 | 1.8 | ||||
Event estimated “deceased.” Odds ratios and ± 95% confidence intervals are presented as well as p values for likelihood Chi2 statistics. For the reference level, the OR = 1. p values are given for variables within the study groups.
Multivariable logistic analysis of edentulous patients stratified on age.
| Age-group ≤59 years ( | Age-group 60–79 years ( | Age-group ≥ 80 years ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI |
| OR | 95% CI |
| OR | 95% CI |
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 1.0 | 0.0025 | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <0.01 | |||
| No | 1.7 | 1.2–2.4 | 1.7 | 1.4–2.0 | 1.8 | 1.2–2.6 | |||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Male | 1.0 | 0.05 | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <.0001 | |||
| Female | 0.8 | 0.6–1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6–0.8 | 0.5 | 0.4–0.7 | |||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Tertiary | Excluded after univariable analyses | ||||||||
| Secondary | |||||||||
| Primary | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| High | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <.0001 | |||
| Intermediate | 2.0 | 1.3–2.9 | 1.7 | 1.4–2.1 | 1.0 | 0.6–1.6 | |||
| Low | 4.9 | 3.4–7.1 | 4.5 | 3.6–5.5 | 3.1 | 1.9–5.2 | |||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Predominately rural | Excluded after univariable analyses | ||||||||
| Intermediate | |||||||||
| Predominately urban | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Abroad | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <.0001 | 1.0 | <0.01 | |||
| Sweden | 1.9 | 1.4–2.4 | 1.5 | 1.3–1.8 | 1.6 | 1.1–2.3 | |||
Event estimated “deceased.” Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are presented as well as p values for likelihood Chi2 statistics. For the reference level, the OR = 1. P values are given for variables within the age groups.