Skip to main content
Download PDF

Global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index (QCI) of oral disorders: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 1990–2017

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 116 (2024) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 02 May 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Oral disorders are still a major global public health challenge, considering their perpetuating and chronic nature. Currently, there is no direct index to measure the quality of care on a population scale. Hence, we aim to propose a new index to measure the quality of care for oral disorders worldwide.

Methods

We generated our database using the data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2017. Among different variables such as prevalence, incidence, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years, we utilised principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the component that bears the greatest proportion of information to generate the novel quality of care index (QCI) for oral disorders.

Results

Global QCI for oral disorders gradually increased from 1990 to 2017 (from 70.5 to 74.6). No significant gender disparity was observed during this period, and the gender disparity ratio (GDR) was considered optimal in 1990 and 2017. Between 1990 and 2017, the age-standardised QCI for all oral disorders increased in all the SDI regions. The highest QCI for all oral disorders in 2017 belonged to high-middle SDI countries (=80.24), and the lowest YLDs rate was seen in the low SDI quintile. In 1990, the quality of care in European, Central Asian, and Central and South American countries was in the lowest quintiles, whereas the North American, East Asian, Middle Eastern, and some African countries had the highest quality of dental care. Maynmar (=100), Uganda (=92.5), Taiwan (=92.0), China (=92.5), and the United States (=89.2) were the five countries with the highest age-standardised QCI. Nicaragua (=41.3), Belgium (=40.2), Venezuela (=38.4), Sierra Leone (=30.5), and the Gambia (=30.3) were the five countries with the least age-standardised QCI values.

Conclusion

The quality of care for all oral disorders showed an increasing trend on a global scale from 1990 to 2017. However, the QCI distribution was not homogenous among various regions. To prevent the exacerbation of imminent disparities in this regard, better attention to total tooth loss in high-income countries and prioritising primary healthcare provision in low-income countries are recommended for oral disorders.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Oral disorders, despite being largely preventable, are still a significant global public health challenge. Dental caries is the most prevalent health condition around the globe [1, 2]. The latest Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study estimates that around 3.5 billion people suffer from oral disorders worldwide. This number has been growing in the past few decades [3]. According to the latest estimations, total direct and indirect costs due to dental diseases were estimated to be $544.41 billion, making it the sixth most costly health condition globally in 2015 [4]. Although oral disorders are highly prevalent due to their nonfatal characteristics and mostly appearing as chronic conditions [2, 5,6,7], health systems often neglect them. This has mirrored in most health systems as not fully covering oral health care costs, thereby the major part of oral care being provided by the private sector [2, 8]. All these factors have been significant contributors to exacerbating the rising burden of oral diseases.

As a partially controversial concept, quantifying the quality of care has been of interest for quite a long time [9, 10]. With the presence of several approaches to tackle this issue, still, no consensus has come up concerning measuring the quality of health care. Some efforts have previously been exerted to define a framework to measure this quality. The dental quality outcomes framework in the UK in 2003 was a start to the process of incentivising quality with a primary focus on equity in access and overall health care experience [11]. These measurements’ trajectory has also shifted towards a public health standpoint using population-scale estimations [12].

Having an index to compare various regions regarding their quality of oral health care can immensely help optimise future policies and approaches, as it can represent the quality of care based on available epidemiological indices. Given that the GBD Study 2017 provides comprehensive data for 354 diseases in 195 countries worldwide and only assesses the burden of oral diseases without further diving into quality assessments [13], we aimed to measure the quality of care for oral disorders using an index we developed [3]. The oral disorders of interest in our study are dental caries (deciduous or permanent), periodontitis, edentulism or severe tooth loss, and other oral disorders based on GBD classification of oral disorders.

Methods

Commencing the design of a multivariate index as a proxy of quality of care, we needed to estimate the following parameters: incidence, prevalence, death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) by cause, age, sex, year, and location. We did so by analysing all the available data from the GBD 2017 study (publicly available at: https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-search), which provides a standardised approach. More in-depth inspection of GBD 2017 methodology, including the inputs, analyses, and outputs, can be done elsewhere [13].

Unlike most oral health and dentistry studies, the reported data do not include variables such as decayed, missing, and filled teeth separately; instead, there are three variables comprising incidence, prevalence, and YLDs; categorised by age, sex, year, and location. GBD data on oral diseases (code K00-K01.1, K03-K04.99, K07-K08, K08.8- K14.9, M26-M27.9 in International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10)) is subcategorised into dental caries (either deciduous or permanent teeth) (ICD-10 code: K02.0-K02.9), periodontal diseases (ICD-10 code: K05-K06.9), edentulism and severe tooth loss (ICD-10 code: K08.0-K08.499), and other oral disorders (ICD-10 code: K00-K01.1, K03-K04.99, K07-K08, K08.8-K14.9, M26-M27.9) [13]. Oral disorders are also identified with the B.12.6 code in the GBD database. Detailed information on the analytical methods for estimating the burden of oral disorders can be found elsewhere [3, 13].

We defined two indices related to the quality of care, as follows:

  1. 1)
    $$\textrm{YLD}\ \textrm{to}\ \textrm{incidence}\ \textrm{ratio}=\frac{\#\textrm{YLDs}\ }{\#\textrm{Incidence}}$$
  2. 2)
    $$\textrm{Prevalence}\ \textrm{to}\ \textrm{incidence}\ \textrm{ratio}=\frac{\#\textrm{Prevalence}\ }{\#\textrm{Incidence}}$$

These two indices can follow a particular trend individually. Lower values of YLDs to incidence ratio could mean the lower burden of disease and/or lower occurrence of the cases, which is further expounded as better care and/or better prevention. Prevalence to incidence ratio shows the effectiveness of prevention programs (if any) in which lower values imply a better oral health status [14]. Among these indices, the trend of each one can easily be determined. For instance, higher values of prevalence to incidence ratio could mean better care and/or better prevention among patients. Higher prevalence to incidence ratio suggests higher prevalence in a fixed incidence rate, which is indicative of more accurate diagnosis, prolonged life span, and better care quality. DALYs to prevalence ratio is high when a high burden of the disease (due to either mortality or morbidity) is present in the country. Higher values of the DALYs to prevalence ratio suggest a greater burden and disability in a specific prevalence rate.

To make generalizable inferences from these individual indices, we summarized them using principal component analysis (PCA). This method is a multivariate analytical approach that extracts linear combinations of variables as either orthogonal or uncorrelated components [15]. The first-ranked component of both of these indices in the PCA analysis was considered as the quality-of-care Index (QCI). Component scores were calculated on a scale from 0 to 100 in which higher numbers indicate a better status [16].

Other than the overall QCI for oral disorders, it was separately calculated for caries of deciduous teeth, caries of permanent teeth, periodontal diseases, and edentulism. While assessing the distribution of QCIs, we categorized the regions based on two approaches: Socio-demographic Index (SDI) classification [17]. This classification can represent the development status of a region based on various factors (i.e., economic average incomes per capita, average educational attainment and fertility rates). To assess gender inequality in each country, we used gender disparity ratio (GDR), which is the male to female ratio of QCIs. Concerning the GDR values, five quintiles were defined: 0 to 0.5, 0.5 to 0.95, 0.95 to 1.05, 1.05 to 1.5, and more than 1.5. We considered the 0.95 to 1.05 quintiles as the optimum GDR. Six-sigma approach was applied to find the outlier countries (with very high or very low QCIs). The outlier countries could represent two situations: either a weak performance in a specific condition such as outbreaks, or a significantly higher or lower prevalence of a condition. In doing so, we calculated the mean and standard deviation of QCI and identified the values out of the “(μ − 3σ, μ + 3σ)” range –as the outliers. This methodology can be found in further details elsewhere [18]. From here onwards, all the QCIs mentioned in this paper, that are not accompanied by a specified age category, are age-standardised. For age disparity patterns, the QCI for each age group was calculated separately on global and SDI scales. We considered ages under 20 years as “childhood and adolescence”, 20–65 as “adulthood”, and above 65 as “the elderly”.

Validation

We applied a mixed-effect regression model on QCI as a dependent variable and inpatient and outpatient health care utilisation and prevalence (of oral disorders) as independent variables. In this regard, countries were considered as a random effect and a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated between the predicted QCI and Healthcare Access and Quality Index (HAQI) [19], an index to evaluate the accessibility of care [14, 20].

Statistical analysis

We used R 3.6.0 (R Core Team, 2019) to perform the analyses. Detailed information on the steps of our mathematical methods and the statistical protocol are provided elsewhere [21].

Results

Burden of oral disorders

Globally, oral disorders caused more than 18.3 million YLDs (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): 11.0–28.3) (compared to 10.9 million YLDs (6.6–16.8) in 1990) in 2017. YLDs rates continuously increased through the years and reached an average rate of 228.8 (137.5–353.7) in 2017 (compared to 238.3 [145.5–366.0] in 1990). Different subcategories of oral disorders (except for “other oral disorders” subcategory) caused the following YLDs in all ages in 2017 worldwide: 138,916 for caries of deciduous teeth, 1,618,887 for caries of permanent teeth, 5,185,589 for periodontal diseases, 7,345,908 for edentulism and severe tooth loss. Oral disorders were responsible for 0.73% (0.46–1.08%) of global YLDs in 2017 (compared to 0.42% (0.27–0.63%) of total YLDs in 1990). YLDs rate for women was higher than men in 2017 .1 [119.1–315.7]). Based on World Bank regions, from 1990 to 2017, the YLDs rate of all oral disorders slightly decreased in Europe and Central Asia (from 293 to 288 per 100,000), North America (from 236 to 214 per 100,000), and Latin America and Caribbean (from 336 to 335 per 100,000). During the same period, the prevalence of oral disorders has decreased in all World Bank regions.

The global age-standardized YLDs rate of caries of deciduous teeth decreased from 2.3 (1.0–4.4) in 1990 to 2.0 (0.9–4.1) in 2017. The burden of permanent teeth caries also decreased from 23.4 (10.2–44.6) in 1990 to 20.7 (8.9–39.2) in 2017. Worldwide, YLDs of periodontal diseases increased from 59.9 (23.6–123.3) in 1990 to 63.5 (25.0–130.3) in 2017. For edentulism and severe tooth loss, it also increased from 102.0 (68.2–143.5) in 1990 to 91.7 (61.3–129.9) in 2017. YLDs of other oral disorders also increased, from 50.8 (31.7–74.5) in 1990 to 50.9 (31.8–74.7) in 2017 (Table 1).

Table 1 Age-standardised estimates of burden and QCI of oral disorders globally and by SDI quintiles
Full size table

Quality of care index and gender inequity

Global QCI for oral disorders gradually increased from 1990 to 2017 from 70.5 to 74.6 (Fig. 1). Quality of care for women was lower than men (68.2 compared with 72.2) in 1990 worldwide. It then increased for both men and women globally throughout this period. However, women still experienced lower care quality in 2017 (72.5 compared with 76.0) (Fig. 2). The gender disparity ratio was 1.05 in both 1990 and 2017.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Geographical distribution of QCIs* (%) for oral disorders. A Global distribution of age-standardised QCI in men and women in 1990, B Global distribution of age-standardised QCI in men and women in 2017. QCI: Quality of care index

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Geographical distribution of GDR for oral disorders. A Age-standardised gender disparity ratio in men and women in 1990, B Age-standardised gender disparity ratio in men and women in 2017. GDR: Gender disparity ratio

Full size image

Among all the age groups, the QCI of oral disorders in 5–9-years-old was the highest in both 1990 and 2017 (86.0 and 87.2, respectively). Overall, the adulthood age group showed a higher quality of care compared with the elderly age group. The QCI in 1–4-years-old children, as the age group with the least QCI score for oral disorders, increased from 62.3 to 65.1 in the years 1990 and 2017, respectively. It followed the same pattern in 5–9-years old children and increased from 86.0 in 1990 to 87.2 in 2017. Globally, the QCI of caries of permanent teeth also increased from 69.5 in 1990 to 77.2 in 2107. Turning to periodontal diseases and total tooth loss, the QCI for periodontal diseases decreased from 73.3 to 71.1 throughout these years, whereas slightly dropping for edentulism, from 66.2 to 61.2 (Table 1). Concerning gender disparity, all the age groups had an optimum GDR score worldwide. On a global scale, the highest GDR was observed in the 35–40 age group (adulthood) at a figure of 1.05. The GDR score bottomed at 0.89 in the low-SDI quintile (countries) in the elderly age group (95 years old) whereas peaking at 1.07 in the middle-SDI quintile in 35–years old. Figures 3 and 4 show the QCI and GDR trend among distinct age groups in all the SDI quintiles and worldwide.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Disparity patterns of oral disorders in various global and socio-demographic index (SDI) quintiles in 2017. Vertical axis represents the QCI scores (from 0 to 100) in both sexed combined, while the horizontal axis shows the age number. Distinct colours distinguish trends in various SDI quintiles and the global trend

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Disparity patterns of oral disorders in various global and socio-demographic index (SDI) quintiles in 2017. Vertical axis represents the gender disparity ratio (GDR) in both sexes combined, while the horizontal axis shows the age number. Distinct colours distinguish trends in various SDI quintiles and the global trend

Full size image

Quality of care index among the countries

Between 1990 and 2017, the age-standardised QCI for all oral disorders increased in all the SDI regions. According to the SDI classification, while the highest QCI for all oral disorders in 2017 belonged to high-middle SDI countries (=80.24), the lowest YLDs rate was seen in the low SDI quintile (Fig. 5). The following five countries enjoyed the highest increases in QCI from 1990 to 2017: France (34.8), Belgium (31.4), Spain (30.8), Israel (29.3), and Germany (29.3). These five countries, on the other hand, had the highest decreases in QCI in the same period: Nigeria (− 11.4), Guinea-Bissau (− 10), Western Sub-Saharan Africa (− 9.6), Libya (− 9.4), and Guinea (− 7.7).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Global regions and countries listed in a descending order based on their QCIs for oral disorders

Full size image

Maynmar (=100), Uganda (=92.5), Taiwan (=92.0), China (=92.5), and the United States (=89.2) were the five countries with the highest age-standardised QCI scores among the others in 2017. On the other hand, Nicaragua (=41.3), Belgium (=40.2), Venezuela (=38.4), Sierra Leone (=30.5), and the Gambia (=30.3) were the five countries with the least age-standardised QCI values in 2017. While the QCI for all oral disorders has increased in the European and South African countries during these 28 years, Belgium’s index was three sigmas lower than the average from 1990 to 2005. Figure 5 shows the global, regional, and country by country QCI in 2017.

Discussion

This study introduces an original multivariate index (the QCI) that strives to show the quality of care for oral disorders worldwide from 1990 to 2017. To our knowledge, no study has yet focused on the quality of care in the oral health context on a global scale. Therefore, we tried to applicate the most comprehensive measures to capture different aspects of oral health care as it can be salient for policymakers that aim to enhance the oral health status and its quality of care among populations worldwide.

We defined oral disorders as all the pathologic conditions occurring in the oral cavity except for the lip and oral cavity cancers. None of these conditions —including teeth caries, periodontal diseases, edentulism, and other disorders— directly leads to mortality. Additionally, oral disorders are long-lasting conditions, and their management has repeatedly proven to be a challenge for health care systems around the world [1, 21, 22].

Several wide-scale policies have been proposed to mitigate the burden of oral disorders on the healthcare systems, including adding dental care to universal health coverage with the help of minimal intervention dentistry, pursuing preventive approaches to intercept oral disorders at the initiation phase, controlling shared risk factors (with other systemic diseases), and managing the social and commercial determinants of oral disorders [1, 21, 23]. As multiple risk factors like diet, hygiene, smoking and alcohol consumption, stress, and trauma, are suggested as common risk factors mainly affecting the oral health status [1, 24, 25], the proposed policies to improve oral health should also focus on these risk factors [25,26,27,28,29].

Policymakers in the oral health sector are encouraged to address not only the direct risks but also broader and more fundamental issues in the hierarchy of risk factors for oral health disorders. Providing high-quality oral health care can notably enhance the quality of life (decreased YLDs) and reduce the prevalence of these conditions among the public [30]. All these approaches can eventually result in more patients getting quality care for their oral disorders. Our index, the QCI, includes public-health measures to estimate a proxy for the quality of care in various global countries and regions.

We found that the overall trend of QCI was upwards for oral disorders globally, a sign of moving towards a better quality of care in all regions (classified by SDI). For all oral disorders, the lowest quality of care was seen in a diverse set of countries (Central Africa, Central and Latin America, and Western Europe). This is in line with the findings of the GBD study 2017, which found a similar distribution for normative need and YLDs of oral disorders in various regions [21]. Cote d’Ivoire, a low-income country, was among the 10 countries with the least QCIs for both periodontal diseases and edentulism, while not being one of the 20 countries with the least QCIs for all oral disorders. This finding can be explained by the fact that low-income countries had the least burden of untreated caries in 2017 —as the traditional diet is low in carbohydrates [31, 32]— with a cost-efficient choice of symptom relief in patients (tooth extraction) [33]. Economic conditions likely restricted their access to effective treatments for periodontal diseases or complete dental loss (via periodontal rehabilitation or prosthetic options) [34,35,36].

For all oral disorders, among the European countries, Belgium was the only one with a QCI value three sigmas lower than the average from 1990 to 2005. It had the fourth-lowest QCI in 2017 for all oral disorders as well. Upon more in-depth inspection, we found that nearly 43% of YLDs rate was attributed to edentulism. Because patients in Belgium were more likely to wear a removable denture (versus more sophisticated treatment plans tending to rehabilitate the chewing functions more effectively), the lower QCI for edentulism can be rationalised [37]. Higher YLDs rate of total tooth loss is associated with tooth death spiral, a phenomenon most likely to happen in more affluent countries with usually better access to dental services and oral healthcare [38,39,40]. Although high-income countries have been trying to adopt more preventive approaches for dental treatments, the YLDs rates of deciduous teeth caries were lower in regions with lower SDI status. Genetic and nutritional (low-carbohydrate diet) factors both contribute to lower burden and accordingly lower QCIs of caries in deciduous teeth in “low-status” countries [31, 41, 42].

In 2017, while having the least YLDs rate for tooth caries and periodontal diseases, middle-high and high SDI countries generally showed higher QCI values for periodontal diseases than those with low or low-middle status. This fact can be expounded by knowing that these countries have already reduced their sugar consumption [43] and naturally have better access to more complex periodontal treatments [44].

Looking at the QCI’s global age patterns, interestingly, two peaks occurred in the quality of care, both happening in the children and adolescents age group. This reflects the success of preventive approaches in below-20-year populations to reduce the prevalence and burden of oral disorders worldwide. Notably, low- and low-middle SDI countries showed lower peaks than their counterparts. Globally, the quality of care for all oral disorders fluctuated on a downward trend with advancing age. This supports the growing concerns to provide higher quality dental care for the adulthood and elderly demographics and meet their needs around the world [45]. Caries of permanent teeth showed quite a similar QCI pattern among the age groups, implying a need to heed the permanent teeth and their perpetuating issues in older individuals [46]. However, the QCI plummeted at 65–70-year-olds for periodontal diseases and edentulism, then rising toward higher figures. The plunging and recovery were sharper for edentulism. These results can be explained by the fact that, most likely, the number of remaining teeth had already decreased to its lowest before the initiation of “the elderly” age group. This essentially means a natural alleviation for periodontal problems (as the teeth with unfavourable prognosis had already been lost). After this stage, the elderly patients will probably seek prosthetic solutions and rehabilitative treatments more actively, hence the sharp increase in the QCI of edentulism in those older than 70.

Regarding the gender disparities, the GDR was optimal both in 1990 and 2017 for all oral disorders worldwide. This can be positive finding as there was no significant disparities between men and women regarding the QCI of oral disorders throughout these years.

Our results can help develop oral healthcare provision strategies (either local or national) and provide evidence to guide health policy-making procedures in the future. As such, the importance of pursuing preventive and minimal intervention dentistry (and avoiding the death spiral cycle) in all regions of the world is reiterated. Prioritising the quality of care for edentulism in more affluent areas while enhancing access to primary healthcare in more deprived areas (to halt tooth caries) is also a key takeaway from our results. More research with a specific focus on the quality of care for each oral disorders (i.e., dental caries, periodontal diseases, edentulism) is highly recommended.

Limitations

It should be reiterated that QCI values with distinct causes are not comparable, and one should only compare the QCI values within the confines of the same cause (in different times and locations). We tried to cover various aspects of oral healthcare in the context of the GBD database. The major factors to consider were: DALY, mortality, prevalence, and incidence of the disease. Nevertheless, considering our data’s restrictions, other factors influencing the quality of care were out of reach to evaluate (such as patient satisfaction, staff responsiveness, treatment reliability and validity assessment, etc.). Furthermore, the accessibility of healthcare was not considered directly in our index. Our results are better to be interpreted cautiously as they are relative estimations and do not report absolute figures.

Conclusion

The quality of care for all oral disorders showed an increasing trend on a global scale from 1990 to 2017. Nevertheless, the QCI distribution was not homogenous among various regions. To tackle this issue, better attention to total tooth loss in high-income countries and prioritising primary healthcare provision in low-income countries are recommended.

Availability of data and materials

Preliminary, we used GBD 2017 dataset, which is publicly available, to generate the data for our statistical analysis (available at: https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-search). The generated datasets are available at Supplementary Materials.

Change history

Abbreviations

GBD:

Global Burden of Disease

YLLs:

years of life lost

YLDs:

years lived with disability

DALYs:

disability-adjusted life years

PCA:

principal component analysis

SDI:

Socio-demographic Index

GDR:

gender disparity ratio

QCI:

quality-of-care Index

HAQI:

Healthcare Access and Quality Index

References

  1. Peres MA, Macpherson LM, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):249–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shoaee S, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Masinaei M, Sofi-Mahmudi A, Hessari H, Heydari M-H, et al. Trends in dental caries of deciduous teeth in Iran: a systematic analysis of the national and sub-national data from 1990 to 2017. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):634.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kassebaum N, Smith A, Bernabé E, Fleming T, Reynolds A, Vos T, et al. Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. J Dent Res. 2017;96(4):380–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Righolt A, Jevdjevic M, Marcenes W, Listl S. Global-, regional-, and country-level economic impacts of dental diseases in 2015. J Dent Res. 2018;97(5):501–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guay AH. The differences between dental and medical care: implications for dental benefit plan design. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(6):801–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shoaee S, Heydari M-H, Hessari H, Mehrdad N, Khalilazar L, Hatami B, et al. Development and initial validation of the comprehensive geriatric Oral health assessment tool. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023;9(5):879–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shoaee S, Masinaei M, Moghaddam SS, Sofi-Mahmudi A, Hessari H, Shamsoddin E, Heydari MH, Larijani B, Fakhrzadeh H, Farzadfar F. National and subnational trend of dental caries of permanent teeth in Iran, 1990–2017. Int Dent J. 2024;74(1):129–37.

  8. Watt RG, Daly B, Allison P, Macpherson LM, Venturelli R, Listl S, et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):261–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Quentin W, Partanen V-M, Brownwood I, Klazinga N. Measuring healthcare quality. In: Improving healthcare quality in Europe; 2019. p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hanefeld J, Powell-Jackson T, Balabanova D. Understanding and measuring quality of care: dealing with complexity. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(5):368–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell S, Tickle M. What is quality primary dental care? Br Dent J. 2013;215(3):135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen A, Jacobsen KH, Deshmukh AA, Cantor SB. The evolution of the disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Socio Econ Plan Sci. 2015;49:10–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. GBD 2017. Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet (London, England). 2018;392(10159):1789–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sofi-Mahmudi A, Masinaei M, Shamsoddin E, Tovani-Palone MR, Heydari M-H, Shoaee S, et al. Global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index (QCI) of lip and oral cavity cancer: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 1990–2017. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):558.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Rencher AC, Schimek M. Methods of multivariate analysis. Comput Stat. 1997;12(4):422.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mohammadi E, Ghasemi E, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Yoosefi M, Ghanbari A, Ahmadi N, Masinaei M, Roshani Sh, Ebrahimi N, Rouhifard Khalilabad M, Nasserinejad M, Azadnajafabad S, Mohajer B, Mohebi F, Rezaei N, Mokdad A, Larijani B, Farzadfar F. Quality of care index (QCI). protocolsio. 2020;2021(24 Jan 2021).

  17. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 (GBD 2017) Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) 1950–2017. Seattle, United States of America: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME); 2018.

  18. Pande PS, Holpp L. What is six sigma?. McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001.

  19. GBD 2016. Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10136):2236–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aminorroaya A, Yoosefi M, Rezaei N, Shabani M, Mohammadi E, Fattahi N, et al. Global, regional, and national quality of care of ischaemic heart disease from 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;29(2):371–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bernabe E, Marcenes W, Hernandez CR, Bailey J, Abreu LG, Alipour V, et al. Global, regional, and National Levels and trends in burden of Oral conditions from 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease 2017 study. J Dent Res. 2020;99(4):362–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lindroos EK, Saarela RKT, Suominen MH, Muurinen S, Soini H, Kautiainen H, et al. Burden of Oral symptoms and its associations with nutrition, well-being, and survival among nursing home residents. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(5):537–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jin LJ, Lamster IB, Greenspan JS, Pitts NB, Scully C, Warnakulasuriya S. Global burden of oral diseases: emerging concepts, management and interplay with systemic health. Oral Dis. 2016;22(7):609–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheiham A, Watt RG. The common risk factor approach: a rational basis for promoting oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28(6):399–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Watt RG, Sheiham A. Integrating the common risk factor approach into a social determinants framework. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40(4):289–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sheiham A, Williams DM. Reducing inequalities in Oral health in the Africa and Middle East region. Adv Dent Res. 2015;27(1):4–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Petersen PE. The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century--the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31(Suppl 1):3–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Watt RG, Petersen PE. Periodontal health through public health--the case for oral health promotion. Periodontology 2000. 2012;60(1):147–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mortazavi H, Sadeghian A, Hazrati P, Heydari M-H, Madihi S. Oral hemorrhagic blister and its possible related factors: analyzes of reported cases in the literature. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol. 2023;35(4):358–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baiju RM, Peter E, Varghese NO, Sivaram R. Oral health and quality of life: current concepts. J Clin Diagnostic Res: JCDR. 2017;11(6):Ze21–ze6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Weeratunga P, Jayasinghe S, Perera Y, Jayasena G, Jayasinghe S. Per capita sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes mellitus--global and regional associations. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:186.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Singh GM, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Shi P, Lim S, Andrews KG, et al. Global, regional, and National Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juices, and Milk: a systematic assessment of beverage intake in 187 countries. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0124845.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Elujoba AA, Odeleye O, Ogunyemi C. Traditional medicine development for medical and dental primary health care delivery system in Africa. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med. 2005;2(1):46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Diop M, Kanouté A, Diouf M, Ndiaye AD, Lo CMM, Faye D, et al. The role of health insurance in the coverage of oral health care in Senegal. J Public Health Africa. 2018;9(3):772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Roucka TM. Access to dental care in two long-term refugee camps in western Tanzania; programme development and assessment. Int Dent J. 2011;61(2):109–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Moscowchi A, Moradian-Lotfi S, Koohi H, Sarrafan Sadeghi T. Levels of smoking and outcome measures of root coverage procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. Published online August 2, 2023.

  37. Taylor Nelson Sofres PLC (TNS) and Social Survey Team. Oral health report - European Commission - Eurobarometer -Belgium. Belgium: Directorate General Health and Consumers; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Elderton RJ. Clinical studies concerning re-restoration of teeth. Adv Dent Res. 1990;4:4–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sheiham A. Minimal intervention in dental care. Med Princ Pract. 2002;11(Suppl 1):2–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Qvist V. Longevity of restorations - "the death spiral". In Dental caries - The disease and its clinical management. 2nd ed. UK. 2008. p. 443–455.

  41. Opal S, Garg S, Jain J, Walia I. Genetic factors affecting dental caries risk. Aust Dent J. 2015;60(1):2–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Werneck RI, Mira MT, Trevilatto PC. A critical review: an overview of genetic influence on dental caries. Oral Dis. 2010;16(7):613–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wittekind A, Walton J. Worldwide trends in dietary sugars intake. Nutr Res Rev. 2014;27(2):330–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. König J, Holtfreter B, Kocher T. Periodontal health in Europe: future trends based on treatment needs and the provision of periodontal services--position paper 1. Eur J Dent Educ. 2010;14(Suppl 1):4–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chae S, Lee Y, Kim J, Chun KH, Lee JK. Factors associated with perceived unmet dental care needs of older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(11):1936–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. López R, Smith PC, Göstemeyer G, Schwendicke F. Ageing, dental caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44(Suppl 18):S145–s52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stevens GA, Alkema L, Black RE, Boerma JT, Collins GS, Ezzati M, et al. Guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting: the GATHER statement. PLoS Med. 2016;13(6):e1002056.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We profoundly thank all staff and colleagues in Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center (NCDRC) and Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute (EMRI) at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, helping conducting such valuable studies.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shervan Shoaee and Erfan Ghasemi are equally first author.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Shervan Shoaee, Erfan Ghasemi, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Erfan Shamsoddin, Mohammad-Hossein Heydari, Moein Yoosefi, Masoud Masinaei, Sina Azadnaejafabadi, Esmaeil Mohammadi, Negar Rezaei & Farshad Farzadfar

  2. Elderly Health Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Shervan Shoaee & Hossein Fakhrzadeh

  3. Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Shervan Shoaee, Negar Rezaei, Bagher Larijani & Farshad Farzadfar

  4. Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran

    Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi & Erfan Shamsoddin

  5. Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 14049-900, Brazil

    Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone

  6. The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Shahin Roshani

  7. School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad-Hossein Heydari

  8. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Masoud Masinaei

Authors
  1. Shervan Shoaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erfan Ghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erfan Shamsoddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shahin Roshani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohammad-Hossein Heydari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Moein Yoosefi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Masoud Masinaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sina Azadnaejafabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Esmaeil Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Negar Rezaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Bagher Larijani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Hossein Fakhrzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Farshad Farzadfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SS: conceptualization, investigation, writing original draft, interpreting the data, and revising the manuscript; EG: formal analysis, data curation, visualization; AS-M: writing original draft, interpreting the data, and revising the manuscript; ES: interpreting the data, writing original draft, revising the manuscript; MRT-P: interpreting the data, writing original draft and revising the manuscript; SR: validation, data curation; MH-H: interpreting the data, writing original draft, revising the manuscript; MY: investigation, data curation; MM: investigation, conceptualization; SA: validation, data curation; EM: conceptualization, investigation, validation; NR: investigation, conceptualization; BL: investigation, conceptualization; HF: investigation, conceptualization; FF: conceptualization, methodology, revising the manuscript, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farshad Farzadfar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We did not use individual human data in this study and all the analyses were based on population level data by age groups, sex, location, cause and year from the GBD study (available at: https://gbd2017.healthdata.org/gbd-search). Also, this study was approved by the ethics committee of Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (IR.TUMS.EMRI.REC.1397.014). As we used no individual human data, the ethics committee of Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran waived the need for informed consent. This study complies with Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) recommendations [47]. Further information is available elsewhere [13].

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi is an editor at BMC Oral Health. Other authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors of this study explicitly claim that there was no conflict of interest in conducting this work.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shoaee, S., Ghasemi, E., Sofi-Mahmudi, A. et al. Global, regional, and national burden and quality of care index (QCI) of oral disorders: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 1990–2017. BMC Oral Health 24, 116 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03808-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03808-z

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us