Skip to main content
Download PDF

Oral health assessment in institutionalized elderly: a scoping review

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 272 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

When elderly become frail and in need for complex care, they can no longer live independently at home and may be admitted to nursing homes. Various studies have shown that oral health in this population is remarkably poor, which may lead to distressing situations and impacts quality of life. A variety of definitions or descriptions for oral health is used. Without a uniform parameter, it is impossible to determine whether oral health in institutionalized elderly is actually improving or deteriorating over time, as well as the effect of (preventive) interventions. In search for an adequate and clinically applicable parameter to determine oral health in this specific patient group, this scoping review aims to give an overview of the currently used parameters for determining oral health in institutionalized elderly. Ninety different parameters were identified, and 50 parameters were solely used by one study. Only 4 parameters were frequently used (in > 20 studies). The relevance of these parameters for this specific patient group is discussed. To aid the planning and commissioning of future research and patient care, there is an urgent need for an adequate and uniform parameter for oral health determination in institutionalized elderly.

Peer Review reports

Background

The elderly population is increasing rapidly. It is estimated that by 2050 the population of the ‘oldest old’ (80 years and over) will be more than tripled [1]. This will have a major impact on healthcare systems, as elderly are susceptible to frailty and care-dependency. Frailty is defined as a state in which elderly are vulnerable to sudden changes in health status because of a decline in physiological function and reserve [2]. Very often, frail elderly have more than one chronic disease (co-morbidity) and show limitations in daily activity (disability) [3].

When elderly become frail and in need of complex care, they can no longer live independently at home and may be admitted to nursing homes. Among these institutionalized elderly oral health is often poor, with high prevalence of caries and radices relictae, accompanied by poor oral hygiene [4,5,6], oral dryness, oral pain and poor oral function [7]. This can be a major risk factor for general health and quality of life [8, 9]. Poor oral health, especially periodontal disease, is associated with several systemic chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, Alzheimer disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, certain cancers and aspiration pneumonia [10, 11]. Loss of teeth or broken teeth can cause chewing problems leading to changes in nutritional intake which can result in an easy to chew diet with low protein and low levels of vitamins [12] and malnutrition [13]. Therefore, in frail elderly, maintaining good oral health is essential for systemic health and quality of life.

An important risk factor for poor oral health is the use of specific medication or combinations of medication, which is frequently seen among older adults. In case of polypharmacy (i.e. 4 or more different medication), the risk of developing a dry mouth is high [14]. A low level or poor quality of saliva rapidly increases the risk for caries and periodontitis [15, 16]. Other risk factors that can contribute to the deterioration of oral health is the reported change in oral care behavior including oral self-care. Among a group of home-dwelling, frail elderly almost half (44%) of the participants reported difficulties with visiting the dentist [17]. There are various reasons mentioned for the decline in dental office visits: low energy, the perceived effort does not weigh up against the perceived efforts, dental fear and the (perceived) lack of availability of dental care [17, 18]. Among institutionalized elderly visiting the dentist is even more problematic, as they fully depend on caretakers to organize oral (self) care [4].

The older institutionalized patient can therefore be considered as particularly vulnerable with a high risk of developing poor oral health in a short period of time. As the elderly population is growing rapidly and people tend to retain their natural teeth until high age, oral health problems in institutionalized elderly will rapidly increase as well. In the past years, there has been a remarkable increase in research articles focusing on oral health in institutionalized elderly, most of them on the prevalence of oral health problems. All studies in this domain show comparable results, i.e. poor oral health and poor oral hygiene are omnipresent in institutionalized elderly. Research designed as clinical trials to determine the outcomes of preventive oral health care measures or interventions for institutionalized elderly are rare. Furthermore, studies assessing oral health in institutionalized elderly use a variety of definitions or descriptions for oral health. Although there is consensus on a definition of oral health [19], lack of a universal parameter, or combination of parameters, to assess oral health in institutionalized elderly makes it impossible to compare outcomes of different studies. Even more important: without a clear parameter, it is impossible to determine whether oral health in institutionalized elderly is actually improving or deteriorating over time, as well as the effect of (preventive) interventions. Given the concerns about the effect of poor oral health on quality of life and healthy ageing in a physical and mental context and the newly formulated goals of global institutions as The World Health Organization and The United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030) [20], this is problematic. In search for an adequate and clinically applicable parameter to determine oral health in institutionalized elderly, this scoping review aims to give an overview of the currently used parameters in literature for determining oral health in institutionalized elderly.

Methods

This scoping review was executed according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist [21].

The databases MEDLINE, Cinahl and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1st and January 18th 2024 for research articles that reported on oral health in institutionalized elderly. A combination of MeSH Terms and free text words were used:

  1. 1.

    Oral health

  2. 2.

    Elderly, aged

  3. 3.

    Nursing home, institutionalized

As the aim of this study was to provide an overview of all relevant oral health research in institutionalized elderly, and there was merely no research available before 1980’s on this topic, it was chosen to set the time-frame from 1970-on.The online search strategy can be found in the Supplementary file 1.

Selection criteria were: original articles on oral health in institutionalized elderly of which full text was available in English or Dutch. If no full text was available, corresponding authors were contacted by email once. When authors did not respond within 2 weeks, the article was excluded. Reviews were scanned by hand for relevant studies.

Exclusion criteria were: no original articles (i.e. reviews or validation studies), articles reporting on oral health in community-dwelling elderly only, articles of which no full text (in English or Dutch) was available and articles in which oral health was not clearly described. Except for reviews and validation studies, there was no exclusion based on study design. As the main purpose of this study was to determine which parameters for oral health in institutionalized elderly are used in current research, the articles themselves did not undergo a quality assessment. Therefore, no inter-rater reliability was calculated.

After the first screening for relevancy of the abstracts, studies were selected based on the in- and exclusion criteria. Screening of the abstracts and selection of the articles based on the in- and exclusion criteria was done independently by three researchers (AVa, MdS and MB). Afterwards, the results were compared and differences were discussed. Consensus among all three researches had to be reached for an article to be in- or excluded. When no consensus was reached, a fourth researcher (AVi) was consulted.

Data extraction

All study populations consisted of institutionalized elderly, as this was an inclusion criterion. Oral health assessment was the main variable for which data were extracted. Data-extraction was done in triplicate. Name of the assessment (e.g. DMFT, CPITN etc.), detailed description of the assessment and the assessor were listed. The oral health parameters identified were categorized in 3 categories (objective, subjective or combined parameters) and clustered in subdivisions to facilitate interpretation.

Results

Study selection

The selection process is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 497 articles were identified (Medline n = 343, Cinahl n = 5 and Cochrane Library n = 149). Duplicates (n = 30) were removed. After screening titles and abstracts for relevancy, another 308 articles were excluded. Of the remaining studies, full text was assessed. Full text was unavailable for 20 titles. Twenty-seven studies were excluded as they did not include institutionalized elderly. Systematic reviews (n = 10) and validation studies (n = 2) were also excluded, however, two studies [22, 23] retrieved from the reference list of the systematic review of Rejnefelt et al. [24] were added. Eight studies were excluded because oral health parameters were not or not clearly described in the methods-section, and one study was excluded because it only focused on dental implants. This resulted in 91 included studies. It appeared that some of the included studies derived from the same study group (same authors) and used the same study population and study protocol (i.e. the same parameters were used to assess oral health). In order to prevent bias to our results, it was decided to cluster these studies into one study per study group. This resulted in 12 studies being clustered into 5 studies (i.e. exclusion of 7 studies) [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Altogether, 86 studies were included for analysis.

Fig.1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the selection process

Full size image

In the decades 1970–2010, 23 studies were included, from 2010 up to 2023, 63 studies were included, indicating increased interest in this topic. Most studies (n = 77) were conducted in high-income countries based on the New World Bank country classification (2022–2023) [37], no studies were conducted in low-income countries (for details see Supplementary files 2 and 3).

Oral health parameters

The definition or description of oral health, the parameter(s) used and the number of studies in which the parameter was used are listed and described in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The following categories were defined:

Table 1 Objective parameters
Full size table
Table 2 Subjective parameters
Full size table
Table 3 Combined parameters
Full size table
  1. 1)

    Objective parameters (Table 1).

Objective parameters objectively qualify oral health (i.e. without the patient's opinion). These parameters usually focused on one single aspect of oral health. Objective parameters were subdivided into 8 categories to facilitate further interpretation; 1. Dental status, 2. Oral health status, 3. Periodontal parameters including plaque indices, bleeding indices and presence of calculus, 4. Oral hygiene, 5. Denture related parameters, 6. Oral function, 7. Oral pathology and 8. Halitosis.

  1. 2)

    Subjective parameters (Table 2).

Subjective parameters are based on subjective measurements, e.g., oral pain or subjective chewing ability. Subjective parameters were measured by questionnaires or scales, which were completed by the patient or caretaker and varied in length. Subjective parameters were subdivided into the following 4 categories: 1. Dry mouth, 2. Oral health, 3. Oral pain and 4. Masticatory function.

  1. 3)

    Combined parameters (Table 3).

Combined parameters used a variety of objective as well as subjective parameters combined in one instrument to describe oral health. This category included validated (OHAT, ROAG, BOHSE [114, 117, 123]) as well as unvalidated instruments (ADS, Oral health examination status, RAI MDS [121]).

All parameters identified are below described in detail:

  1. 1.

    Objective parameters (Table 1).

Dental status

In total, 45 unique studies reported on dental status. Dental status was often recorded by the decayed, missed, filled teeth/surfaces (DMFT/S) index. The DMFT/S was used in 38 studies [29, 35, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. This index reflects oral status by describing how many teeth are decayed, missing and/or filled. In some studies the DMFT was used to classify oral status: natural dentition without dentures or (partial) edentulous with or without dentures [38]. Also root caries can be added to the index [52]. The DF(R)S index (Decayed, Filled, (Root) Surfaces index, can be considered as an alternative to the DMFT/S index, without ‘missing’ surfaces and including root surfaces [60, 74, 75]. These measures require a dental professional for assessment. Another measure used for dental status was the presence and number of teeth. This measure was used in 21 studies [5, 27, 40, 45, 57, 71, 76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. In some studies it was combined with counting the number of functional occluding pairs that had static contacts [27, 40, 69, 77, 79, 91]. Some studies assessed dental status by the presence of decay only, by either reporting a root caries index [39, 50, 74, 86, 93] or counting the number of teeth with root and/or coronal caries [35, 51, 56, 72, 75, 76, 83,84,85, 90, 94, 95]. Another method for assessment of dental status was dental treatment need [27, 29, 46, 56, 84, 92]. The method differed for every study: it could be simply grading 0 (no treatment needed) or 1 (treatment needed) [27] specified which type of treatment was required [29, 46, 56, 92] and if this was simple or complex treatment [84]. One study used the dental risk assessment: a method to assess individual dental risk based on general and technical risk factors and dental caries and periodontitis risk [63].

Oral health status

Four studies assessed oral health status [71, 87, 92, 97] by four different methods. In one study, oral health status was assessed by a combination of clinical aspects (scored by a dental professional) and the use of a dental visit checklist [97]. There were 3 categories; good, medium or poor, based on the clinical presentation. For instance, edentulous patients without dentures were categorized as poor, partially edentulous patients with 20 occluding contacts were categorized as good. One study assessed oral care status: the dentist determined whether oral care status was good, fair or poor [92]. This was not further specified. The third study assessed presence of oral health status problems: the presence of gingivitis, caries or tooth fracture [87]. The fourth study created an oral health index: a score between 0 and 9 was given, based on the following parameters: caries or root remnants, periodontium, oral hygiene and denture [71].

Periodontal parameters

Within the great variety of parameters used to define oral health, periodontal parameters were used in 42 unique studies. They are further subdivided in periodontal screening instruments, plaque or calculus indices and bleeding or gingival indices.

Periodontal screening instruments

The Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) was used in 15 studies [32, 39, 46, 48, 51, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 74, 85, 86, 98]. The CPITN was designed as a screening instrument enabling the dental professional to get a quick overview of the periodontal status [124]. The CPITN divides the dentition into sextants and provides these sextants with a periodontal health score.

Eleven studies used other periodontal measures: measurements according to the National Institute of Dental Research Criteria [53], the Periodontal Screening Index [44, 58, 59], Dutch Periodontal Screening Index [71], Extent and Severity Index [52] and The Miller Index score [45, 76];

  • National Institute of Dental Research Criteria; examination of 6 teeth on 6 sides and assessing presence or absence of dental plaque, gingival bleeding, supra- and subgingival calculus, as well as probing pocket depth [53].

  • Periodontal Screening Index [26]: screening 6 points per tooth and per sextant ranging from 0–4 based on probing depth, bleeding on probing and calculus.

  • Extent and Severity Index [52]: periodontal score based on the extent of periodontitis (clinical attachment loss categorized slight (1–2 mm), moderate (3–4 mm) or severe (5 mm).

  • Dutch Periodontal Screening index [71]: each sextant is scored based on pocket depth (score ranges 0 to 4). The highest score per sextant is recorded.

  • The Miller index score; assessment of tooth mobility (grade 0–3). This measure is used as a marker for severe periodontal problems [45, 76]. One study did not use the Miller index score to assess tooth mobility, but mainly reported horizontal mobility less than 1 mm (score 1), between 1 and 2 mm (score 2) or more than 2 mm (score 3) [76]. The Miller index score was also combined with other parameters such as presence of calculus and bleeding on probing [45].

  • Other measures were simply measuring pocket depth [55], assessing periodontal status by describing presence of calculus and bleeding on probing [45] or gingivitis assessment by measuring pocket depth, assessing bleeding, suppuration and/or tooth mobility class III [95].

Plaque indices

Plaque indices used to describe oral health were used in 21 studies [5, 32, 39, 41, 50, 55, 58,59,60, 71, 72, 80,81,82, 86, 88, 93, 94, 99,100,101]. The (modified) plaque index, using grades 0–3, distinguished no plaque to visible layers of plaque [39, 41, 50, 60, 71, 80, 86, 88, 94, 99, 101]. A more detailed index was the Quigley-Hein plaque index, which includes all teeth except third molars [58, 86]. Each surface was scored between 0 (no plaque) and 5 (two-thirds of the surface). An index for the entire mouth was determined by dividing the total score by the number of surfaces examined. The mucosal-plaque score [93, 100] was a scoring system used for dentate and edentulous individuals. It registered changes in oral mucosa (i.e. normal presence, mild, moderate or severe inflammation) and plaque score, both on natural teeth and on removable dentures/fixed prosthodontics. The mucosal and plaque scores were combined to calculate the index.

The plaque control record used a plaque indicator on four sites of each tooth [32, 59, 81]. The plaque control record was calculated as the ratio of plaque-positive sites to all sites, expressed as a percentage. A different approach was only including plaque accumulation approximally, and reporting this as a percentage [100].

Calculus indices

Calculus was scored in 5 studies.

Two studies used the Volpe-Manhold index, which quantifies calculus formation on the lingual surfaces of anterior lower teeth, recorded the calculus heights in millimeters [39, 86]. The calculus index scores calculus from 0 (no calculus) to 3 (supragingival calculus covering more than two-thirds of the cervical portion of the tooth) [43] or as present/absent [45]. Presence or absence of calculus was also recorded for each tooth and by dividing by the total number of teeth, resulting in a calculus score [94].

Bleeding/gingival indices

In 7 studies bleeding indices were reported: the modified sulcus bleeding index [93], the papilla bleeding index [86], the gingiva bleeding index [32, 35, 98], the sulcus bleeding index [55], presence of bleeding after probing [45]. Gingival indices were used in 12 studies and included the gingival or gingivitis index [39, 50, 60, 62, 80, 86, 88, 99, 102] and the modified gingiva index [73, 82], to assess the visual appearance of inflammation of the gingiva (score 0–3 and score 0–4).

Oral hygiene

Oral hygiene was assessed in 23 unique studies. The oral hygiene index (OHI) is designed for dentate persons and combines plaque and calculus indices [49, 86]. A shorter version is the simplified-OHI; 6 representative teeth were used instead of all sextants [40, 43, 54, 73, 83, 102], or the modified OHI, which used the summation of average debris index and calculus index [46]. Another instrument used was the Missisippi OHI, which used plaque disclosing agent, and divided each tooth in 5 sections, which were all scored [47]. In case of edentulous elderly a specific denture hygiene index could be used [32, 40, 41, 55, 58, 81, 83, 98], using either grades or a percentage to express cleanliness. A different method for determining oral hygiene was scoring food debris [86] or using the debris index [40, 43, 83, 90].

Denture related parameters

Denture related parameters were used in 35 unique studies. Simply assessing the presence or absence of dentures was reported in 23 studies [27, 29, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, 51, 60, 64, 65, 67, 70, 73, 77, 78, 81, 85,86,87, 90, 91, 103].

A slightly more detailed method was assessing the fit of the dentures, which was done in 10 studies [5, 51, 52, 56, 71, 84, 86, 94, 97, 104]. One study assessed the type, fit and condition of the denture by using the classification of Vigild [49], other studies evaluated the retention and stability, the quality of the denture of prosthetic need [72, 75, 79, 85].

Other objective oral health parameters used were in the domain of oral function, oral pathology and halitosis (Table 1). As they were not frequently used (usually reported in only 1 or a few studies) or were not standardized research parameters, they are not further described in this section.

  1. 2.

    Subjective parameters (Table 2).

Subjective parameters were used in 5 unique studies for dry mouth, 6 studies for oral health and 6 studies for oral pain. The xerostomia inventory [79] consisted of 11 items concerning dry mouth scored by the patient. The summation inventory consisted of 5 items related to dry mouth [40]. The xerostomic visual analog scale [39] focused one question: ‘how dry is your mouth?’; the patient’s answer was recorded as a continuous variable between 0 and 10. Reporting oral health problems was done by either questioning problems with chewing, swallowing and dry mouth [78] or problems with eating due to artificial teeth, chewing and xerostomia [108]. Other questionnaires focused on either dry mouth and oral motor function [105], oral function and oral problems [94], or only on oral symptoms, such as sensitive or broken teeth or bleeding gums [57] or oral pain, bleeding gums and tooth mobility [88]. Also reported are two validated questionnaires focusing on self-reporting oral discomfort (Oral Health Impact Profile: OHIP) and self-perceived oral health (Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index: GOHAI) [61, 64, 65, 67, 72, 100, 101]. One study used a dental visit checklist to determine how often the dentist was visited in the past 2 years including the reason for dental visits [97].

Presence of previously experienced oral pain of discomfort required the input of the elderly participants and was used in 4 studies [46, 49, 84, 109]. In one study the orofacial-pain scale for the non-verbal individuals was used [40].

All studies used 2 or more parameters, subjective and/or objective, and usually of different domains. The same combination of parameters was never used.

  1. 3.

    Combined parameters (Table 3).

Combined parameters used a variety of assessments, objective as well as subjective, combined in one instrument to define oral health. In 8 studies the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) was used [27, 41, 103, 107, 110,111,112,113]. This validated tool focuses on 8 categories (lips, tongue, gums and tissues, saliva, natural teeth, dentures, oral cleanliness and oral pain) [114]. All categories were scored as healthy, changed or unhealthy. The Revised Oral Assessment Guide – Jonköping (ROAG(J)) is somewhat similar, as oral health is evaluated by assessing the condition of voice, lips, oral mucosa, tongue, gums teeth, saliva, swallowing, protheses/implants (grades 0–3) [25, 80, 81, 115, 116], however, this method is unvalidated. The OHAT and ROAG(J) are instruments developed for trained nursing staff, as is the Brief Oral Health Examination Status [122]. Other instruments were either modified or self-created instruments (asymptotic dental score [118], oral health examination instrument [109], clinical dental functionality score [96], oral tissue anomalies scale [94] or only used by nursing staff or research assistants (resident assessment instrument – minimum data set [96, 119, 120]).

Oral health assessor

The assessor of oral health varied between the studies. Objective parameters were mostly assessed by dental professionals, but research examiners were used for assessment of salivary secretion and salivary flow rates [53, 105], oral malodour [107] and soft tissue lesions [104]. The dental professionals themselves were not calibrated, therefore there will always be an impact on the consistency of these parameters.

Subjective parameters required input of the patient, the patient or caregiver completed a questionnaire or scale. In some studies [46, 49, 109], the dental professional asked specific questions to the patient (for instance: were there recently dental pain complaints?) and recorded these answers. One study used the orofacial pain scale for the non-verbal individuals, which is specifically designed for examiners (or observers) [40]. The combined parameters were assessed by trained nursing staff as these parameters were designed to be used by non-dental care professionals. Of the combined parameters, the Asymptotic Dental Scale (ADS) [118] and Oral Health Examination scale [109] were assessed by dental professionals.

Discussion

This scoping review on oral health assessment in institutionalized elderly showed that there is an enormous variability in parameters to define or describe oral health in this specific patient group. Among the objective parameters, there is great variability in interpretation of collective terms as oral (health) status, dental status, oral function and oral pathology and besides, a huge variability in methods to assess the same parameter. There is variability in the assessor too.

This study revealed 90 different parameters for determining oral health institutionalized elderly. Fifty of these parameters were solely used by one individual study. Only 4 parameters (4.4%) were frequently used, i.e. in 20 or more studies.The relevance of these frequently used objective parameters (DMFT/S, dental status (presence and number of teeth), plaque index and denture presence) in this specific patient group is discussed hereafter.

The DMFT/S provides information whether dental treatment has been done (presence of fillings) or if treatment is required (active decay). Indeed, active decay is an important aspect of oral health in this patient group, but it is questionable whether the amount of restorative treatment is relevant too, as elderly usually have a long treatment history. In addition, it can be argued if recording the absence or presence of teeth provides enough information on oral health as it does not provide any information on several other oral health aspects regarding pathology or functionality. The same accounts for denture presence; it does not inform on prosthesis quality and is not relevant for elderly with remaining teeth. Lastly, oral hygiene is an important aspect of oral health, but assessing the plaque index only is too little to qualify oral health in this patient group with often complex oral situations and an almost always inadequate level of oral hygiene.

Oral health described by periodontal parameters may give a better insight of oral health as periodontal disease is associated with inflammatory burden. The CPITN is most frequently used. This method is well suited as a screening tool to assess periodontal health. As it combines presence of periodontal pockets, gingival bleeding and calculus, it functions as a method to examine the periodontium. In combination with the plaque index, this instrument provides detailed information on periodontal health. However, in this complex patient group, periodontal screening with a periodontal probe cannot always be adequately performed as many elderly with complex care needs are uncooperative or in a difficult physical position for oral examination, such as patients in wheelchairs or lying in bed [5]. Other parameters to assess periodontal health, for example radiographic assessment, mobility of teeth, furcation involvement, gingival swelling, spontaneous bleeding or oral malodour may be more easily performed in this population.

Dental treatment need [27, 29, 46, 56, 84, 92], dental risk assessment [63], oral health status [87, 92, 97] and oral health index [71] are not frequently used but appear to be more valuable to assess oral health. Dental treatment need, however, only distinguishes need for treatment, which is a broad term and does not provide detailed information on oral health. Studies on oral health status use all their own methods, which often relies on the dentist’s judgement based on a few parameters, such as dental visits and presence of teeth [97] scoring oral care status of teeth and dentures [92]. Generally, these parameters are minimally described. Dental risk assessment [63] and oral health index [71] use a grading system to assess oral health based on a few parameters. The dental risk assessment does not inform on oral health status but mainly distinguishes older people ‘at risk’ and is therefore not suited to determine oral health. The oral health index [71] based on the presence of caries and root remnants, evaluation of periodontium, oral hygiene and denture seems better equipped to assess oral health. This method is, however, still in pilot study phase.

Interestingly, only two studies included radiographic assessment of oral health [29, 35], whereas in this patient group, radiographs can provide relatively simple an objective overview of multiple oral health problems: presence of caries, periodontal problems as subgingival calculus and furcation involvement, periapical granulomas, quality of previously performed endodontic treatments, oral pathology and the presence of root remnants or impacted teeth.

Subjective parameters evaluate oral health using self-reported input of the elderly. Frequently reported subjective parameters are oral dryness, oral symptoms such as sensitive teeth, oral pain or oral health-related quality of life. These parameters provide important additional information for the dental professional; by assessing someone’s subjective oral health complaints, specific objective parameters can be used to evaluate and qualify their oral health.

Validated questionnaires on self-reported oral health are the OHIP-49 and GOHAI [100], focusing on several oral health-related items and their impact on the elderly’s wellbeing (quality of life). As the goal of these questionnaires is assessing quality of life, these instruments are not well suited to score oral health objectively [125].

The category of combined instruments comprises the validated OHAT [27, 41, 103, 107, 110,111,112,113], created for nursing staff scoring oral health items by appearing ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’. Although the OHAT, together with a newer version of the oral health-related section of the RAI-MDS (the ohr-InterRAI) were considered to have sufficient content validity [126], all oral health assessment instruments for non-dental professionals showed narrow content, poorly defined constructs for measurement, and psychometric weaknesses [127, 128]. Indeed, there are reported differences between the assessment of oral health of institutionalized elderly by dental professionals versus non-dental professionals [129]. Therefore, it is preferred that oral health assessment in this patient group is performed by dental professionals.

Limitations associated with this study are the wide range of different aspects of oral health in institutionalized elderly, and the huge variability among the parameters described for all these different aspects. Data synthesis and -presentation are therefore challenging, and the overview of oral health parameters is comprehensive. The lack of calibration of dental professionals in the included studies makes it impossible to value the different parameters and to formulate clear recommendations.

Concluding remarks

It is concluded that in institutionalized elderly, the huge variability in methods to determine oral health, makes it impossible to compare studies on oral health and the effect of (preventive) interventions in this vulnerable patient group. Given the concerns about the effect of poor oral health on quality of life and healthy ageing in a physical and mental context and the newly formulated goals of global institutions as The World Health Organization and The United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030) [20], this is problematic.

There is an urgent need for an adequate and uniform parameter for oral health determination in institutionalized elderly, to aid the planning and commissioning of future research and patient care.

Oral health assessment in institutionalized elderly should ideally be easily performed, objective, assessed by a dental professional, and reflect on items that may interfere with quality of life or general health such as pain, inflammation, oral pathology and oral function.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

DMFT/S:

Decayed, Missed, Filled Teeth/Surfaces

CPITN:

Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs

OHI:

Oral Hygiene Index

OHIP:

Oral Health Impact Profile

GOHAI:

Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index

OHAT:

Oral Health Assessment Tool

ROAG-J:

Revised Oral Assessment Guide Jonköping

RAI MDS:

Resident Assessment Instrument/Minimum Data Set

References

  1. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. An Aging World: 2015. ; 2016.

  2. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Theou O, Rockwood MRH, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Disability and co-morbidity in relation to frailty: how much do they overlap? Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55(2):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gaszynska E, Szatko F, Godala M, Gaszynski T. Oral health status, dental treatment needs, and barriers to dental care of elderly care home residents in Lodz. Poland Clin Interv Aging. 2014;25(9):1637–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoeksema AR, Peters LL, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA, Vissink A, Visser A. Oral health status and need for oral care of care-dependent indwelling elderly: from admission to death. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(7):2189–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rapp L, Sourdet S, Vellas B, Lacoste-Ferré M. Oral Health and the Frail Elderly. J Frailty Aging. 2017;6(3):154–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gil-Montoya JA, de Mello ALF, Barrios R, Gonzalez-Moles MA, Bravo M. Oral health in the elderly patient and its impact on general well-being: a nonsystematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;11(10):461–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dörfer C, Benz C, Aida J, Campard G. The relationship of oral health with general health and NCDs: a brief review. Int Dent J. 2017;67 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):14–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wong FMF, Ng YTY, Leung WK. Oral Health and Its Associated Factors Among Older Institutionalized Residents-A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hajishengallis G, Chavakis T. Local and systemic mechanisms linking periodontal disease and inflammatory comorbidities. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021;21(7):426–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Maarel-Wierink CD, Vanobbergen JNO, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JMGA, de Baat C. Oral health care and aspiration pneumonia in frail older people: a systematic literature review. Gerodontology. 2013;30(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Müller F. Interventions for edentate elders–what is the evidence? Gerodontology. 2014;31(Suppl 1):44–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zelig R, Goldstein S, Touger-Decker R, Firestone E, Golden A, Johnson Z, et al. Tooth Loss and Nutritional Status in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2022;7(1):4–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johansson A, Johansson A, Unell L, Ekbäck G, Ordell S, Carlsson GE. Self-reported dry mouth in 50- to 80-year-old Swedes: Longitudinal and cross-sectional population studies. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(2):246–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cassolato SF, Turnbull RS. Xerostomia: clinical aspects and treatment. Gerodontology. 2003;20(2):64–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aliko A, Wolff A, Dawes C, Aframian D, Proctor G, Ekström J, et al. World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI: clinical implications of medication-induced salivary gland dysfunction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;120(2):185–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Niesten D, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NHJ. Oral health care behavior and frailty-related factors in a care-dependent older population. J Dent. 2017;61:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niesten D, van Mourik K, van der Sanden W. The impact of frailty on oral care behavior of older people: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health. 2013;1(13):61–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Glick M, Williams DM, Kleinman DV, Vujicic M, Watt RG, Weyant RJ. A new definition for oral health developed by the FDI World Dental Federation opens the door to a universal definition of oral health. Br Dent J. 2016;221(12):792–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. World Health Organization. United Nation's Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030). 2020.

  21. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gordon SR, McLain D. Dental needs related to primary cause for institutionalization. Spec Care Dentist. 1991;11(2):49–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ship JA, Puckett SA. Longitudinal study on oral health in subjects with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(1):57–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rejnefelt I, Andersson P, Renvert S. Oral health status in individuals with dementia living in special facilities. Int J Dent Hyg. 2006;4(2):67–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bellander L, Andersson P, Wijk H, Hägglin C. Oral Assessment and Preventive Actions within the Swedish Quality Register Senior Alert: Impact on Frail Older Adults’ Oral Health in a Longitudinal Perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413075.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bellander L, Andersson P, Nordvall D, Hägglin C. Oral health among older adults in nursing homes: A survey in a national quality register, the Senior Alert. Nurs Open. 2021;8(3):1262–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zenthöfer A, Ehret J, Zajac M, Kilian S, Kostunov J, Rammelsberg P, et al. How Do Changes in Oral Health and Chewing Efficiency Affect the Changes of Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life of Nursing-Home Residents in the Short Term? Clin Interv Aging. 2021;11(16):789–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zenthöfer A, Ehret J, Zajac M, Kilian S, Rammelsberg P, Klotz AL. The Effects of Dental Status and Chewing Efficiency on the Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life of Nursing-Home Residents. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;11(15):2155–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Janssens B, Vanobbergen J, Petrovic M, Jacquet W, Schols JM, De Visschere L. The impact of a preventive and curative oral healthcare program on the prevalence and incidence of oral health problems in nursing home residents. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0198910.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Janssens B, Vanobbergen J, Petrovic M, Jacquet W, Schols JMGA, De Visschere L. The oral health condition and treatment needs assessment of nursing home residents in Flanders (Belgium). Community Dent Health. 2017;34(3):143–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Janssens B, Petrovic M, Jacquet W, Schols JMGA, Vanobbergen J, De Visschere L. Medication Use and Its Potential Impact on the Oral Health Status of Nursing Home Residents in Flanders (Belgium). J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(9):809.e1-809.e8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwindling FS, Krisam J, Hassel AJ, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A. Long-term success of oral health intervention among care-dependent institutionalized seniors: Findings from a controlled clinical trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018;46(2):109–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zenthöfer A, Meyer-Kühling I, Hufeland AL, Schröder J, Cabrera T, Baumgart D, et al. Carers’ education improves oral health of older people suffering from dementia - results of an intervention study. Clin Interv Aging. 2016;30(11):1755–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zenthöfer A, Cabrera T, Rammelsberg P, Hassel AJ. Improving oral health of institutionalized older people with diagnosed dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(3):303–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen X, Clark JJ, Naorungroj S. Oral health in older adults with dementia living in different environments: a propensity analysis. Spec Care Dentist. 2013;33(5):239–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen X, Clark JJ, Naorungroj S. Oral health in nursing home residents with different cognitive statuses. Gerodontology. 2013;30(1):49–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hamadeh, N, Van Rompaey, C, Metreau, E, Eapen, SG. New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2022–2023. 2022; Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023. Accessed 26 Jan 2024.

  38. de Medeiros MMD, Pinheiro MA, de Figueredo OMC, de Oliveira LFS, Wanderley RL, Cavalcanti YW, et al. Masticatory function in nursing home residents: Correlation with the nutritional status and oral health-related quality of life. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(12):1511–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Barbe AG, Küpeli LS, Hamacher S, Noack MJ. Impact of regular professional toothbrushing on oral health, related quality of life, and nutritional and cognitive status in nursing home residents. Int J Dent Hyg. 2020;18(3):238–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. van de Rijt LJ, Feast AR, Vickerstaff V, Lobbezoo F, Sampson EL. Prevalence and associations of orofacial pain and oral health factors in nursing home residents with and without dementia. Age Ageing. 2020;49(3):418–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Klotz AL, Zajac M, Ehret J, Kilian S, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A. Short-Term Effects of a Deterioration of General Health on the Oral Health of Nursing-Home Residents. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;9(15):29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ide K, Seto K, Usui T, Tanaka S, Kawakami K. Correlation between dental conditions and comorbidities in an elderly Japanese population: A cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(24):e11075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hong C, Aung MM, Kanagasabai K, Lim CA, Liang S, Tan KS. The association between oral health status and respiratory pathogen colonization with pneumonia risk in institutionalized adults. Int J Dent Hyg. 2018;16(2):e96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ziebolz D, Werner C, Schmalz G, Nitschke I, Haak R, Mausberg RF, et al. Oral Health and nutritional status in nursing home residents-results of an explorative cross-sectional pilot study. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Christensen LB, Hede B, Nielsen E. A cross-sectional study of oral health and oral health-related quality of life among frail elderly persons on admission to a special oral health care programme in Copenhagen City, Denmark. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gluhak C, Arnetzl GV, Kirmeier R, Jakse N, Arnetzl G. Oral status among seniors in nine nursing homes in Styria. Austria Gerodontology. 2010;27(1):47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jablonski RA, Swecker T, Munro C, Grap MJ, Ligon M. Measuring the oral health of nursing home elders. Clin Nurs Res. 2009;18(3):200–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Samson H, Strand GV, Haugejorden O. Change in oral health status among the institutionalized Norwegian elderly over a period of 16 years. Acta Odontol Scand. 2008;66(6):368–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Adam H, Preston AJ. The oral health of individuals with dementia in nursing homes. Gerodontology. 2006;23(2):99–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Simons D, Kidd EA, Beighton D. Oral health of elderly occupants in residential homes. Lancet. 1999;353(9166):1761–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kuc IM, Samaranayake LP, van Heyst EN. Oral health and microflora in an institutionalised elderly population in Canada. Int Dent J. 1999;49(1):33–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Weyant RJ, Jones JA, Hobbins M, Niessen LC, Adelson R, Rhyne RR. Oral health status of a long-term-care, veteran population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993;21(4):227–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ship JA, Puckett SA. Longitudinal study on oral health in subjects with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42(1):57–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gordon SR, McLain D. Dental needs related to primary cause for institutionalization. Spec Care Dentist. 1991;11(2):49–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Peroz I, Klein C. Influence of professional dental hygiene on oral and general health of retirement home residents: A comparative study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(1):45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hawkins RJ, Main PA, Locker D. Oral health status and treatment needs of Canadian adults aged 85 years and over. Spec Care Dentist. 1998;18(4):164–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Porter J, Ntouva A, Read A, Murdoch M, Ola D, Tsakos G. The impact of oral health on the quality of life of nursing home residents. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Viebranz S, Dederichs M, Kwetkat A, Schüler IM. Effectiveness of Individual Oral Health Care Training in Hospitalized Inpatients in Geriatric Wards. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):4275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054275.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Aquilanti L, Alia S, Pugnaloni S, Scalise L, Vignini A, Rappelli G. A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study on Oral Health and Nutritional Status of Institutionalized Older Adults: A Focus on Sarcopenia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(24):13232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413232.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Bianco A, Mazzea S, Fortunato L, Giudice A, Papadopoli R, Nobile CGA, et al. Oral Health Status and the Impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life among the Institutionalized Elderly Population: A Cross-Sectional Study in an Area of Southern Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Saxena A, Nagarajappa R, Naik D, Abid M, Ramesh G. Assessing the effect of oral diseases on oral health related quality of life of institutionalized elderly using Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire: a pilot study. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2020;71(3):349–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. D’Alessandro G, Costi T, Alkhamis N, Bagattoni S, Sadotti A, Piana G. Oral Health Status in Alzheimer’s Disease Patients: A Descriptive Study in an Italian Population. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(5):483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Andersson P, Renvert S, Sjogren P, Zimmerman M. Dental status in nursing home residents with domiciliary dental care in Sweden. Community Dent Health. 2017;34(4):203–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cornejo M, Pérez G, de Lima K, Casals-Peidro E, Borrell C. Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in institutionalized elderly in Barcelona (Spain). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18(2):285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shetty VD, Bijle MNA, Patil S. The relationship between prosthetic status and the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index in a group of institutionalized elderly of an Indian city: a cross-sectional study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(6):1173–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Velasco-Ortega E, Segura-Egea J, Córdoba-Arenas S, Jiménez-Guerra A, Monsalve-Guil L, López-López J. A comparison of the dental status and treatment needs of older adults with and without chronic mental illness in Sevilla, Spain. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18(1):71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Piuvezam G, de Lima KC. Self-perceived oral health status in institutionalized elderly in Brazil. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55(1):5–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Vucićević-Boras V, Bosnjak A, Alajbeg I, Cekić-Arambasin A, Topić B. Dental health of elderly in retirement homes of two cities in south Croatia–a cross-sectional study. Eur J Med Res. 2002;7(12):550–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Jokstad A, Ambjørnsen E, Eide KE. Oral health in institutionalized elderly people in 1993 compared with in 1980. Acta Odontol Scand. 1996;54(5):303–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Slade GD, Locker D, Leake JL, Price SA, Chao I. Differences in oral health status between institutionalized and non-institutionalized older adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1990;18(5):272–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Miremadi SR, Cosyn J, Janssens B, De Bruyn H, Vanobbergen J, De Visschere L. A pilot assessment tool of the need for oral health care and cost prediction in institutionalized elderly people. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017;15(4):306–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Kohli R, Sehgal HS, Nelson S, Schwarz E. Oral health needs, dental care utilization, and quality of life perceptions among Oregonian seniors. Spec Care Dentist. 2017;37(2):85–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Choufani A, Folliguet M, El-Osta N, Rammal S, Doumit M. Oral health status and care of institutionalized elderly individuals in Lebanon. Indian J Dent Res. 2020;31(4):507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Berg R, Berkey DB, Tang JM, Baine C, Altman DS. Oral health status of older adults in Arizona: results from the Arizona Elder Study. Spec Care Dentist. 2000;20(6):226–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Mersel A. Oral health status and dental needs in a geriatric institutionalized population in Paris. Gerodontology. 1989;8(2):47–51.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Tashiro H, Kikutani T, Tamura F, Takahashi N, Tohara T, Nawachi K, et al. Relationship between oral environment and development of pneumonia and acute viral respiratory infection in dependent older individuals. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019;19(11):1136–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nomura Y, Okada A, Kakuta E, Otsuka R, Sogabe K, Yamane K, et al. Consistency of supplied food and dentition status of the elderly in residential care homes. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 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 

  79. Brochier CW, Hugo FN, Rech RS, Baumgarten A, Hilgert JB. Influence of dental factors on oropharyngeal dysphagia among recipients of long-term care. Gerodontology. 2018;35(4):333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Seleskog B, Lindqvist L, Wårdh I, Engström A, von Bültzingslöwen I. Theoretical and hands-on guidance from dental hygienists promotes good oral health in elderly people living in nursing homes, a pilot study. Int J Dent Hyg. 2018;16(4):476–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Klotz AL, Hassel AJ, Schröder J, Rammelsberg P, Zenthöfer A. Is compromised oral health associated with a greater risk of mortality among nursing home residents? A controlled clinical study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018;30(6):581–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Le P, Dempster L, Limeback H, Locker D. Improving residents’ oral health through staff education in nursing homes. Spec Care Dentist. 2012;32(6):242–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Zuluaga DJ, Ferreira J, Montoya JA, Willumsen T. Oral health in institutionalised elderly people in Oslo, Norway and its relationship with dependence and cognitive impairment. Gerodontology. 2012;29(2):420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Thean HP, Wong ML, Koh GC, Wong AS. Oral health status and treatment needs of elderly residents in a Singapore nursing home. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2009;38(3):282–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mojon P, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Rapin CH. Relationship between oral health and nutrition in very old people. Age Ageing. 1999;28(5):463–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Barbe AG, Kottmann HE, Derman SHM, Noack MJ. Efficacy of regular professional brushing by a dental nurse for 3 months in nursing home residents-A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Int J Dent Hyg. 2019;17(4):327–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Murray PE, Ede-Nichols D, Garcia-Godoy F. Oral health in Florida nursing homes. Int J Dent Hyg. 2006;4(4):198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Michalak P, Polak-Szlósarczyk P, Dyduch-Dudek W, Zarzecka-Francica E, Styrna M, Czekaj Ł, et al. Oral Health of Elderly People in Institutionalized Care and Three-Month Rehabilitation Programme in Southern Poland: A Case-Control Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):4994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094994.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Stephens R, White BA. Oral health status of adults in North Carolina assisted living facilities. J Public Health Dent. 2019;79(3):198–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Nicol R, Petrina Sweeney M, McHugh S, Bagg J. Effectiveness of health care worker training on the oral health of elderly residents of nursing homes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(2):115–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Cocco F, Campus G, Strohmenger L, Ardizzone VC, Cagetti MG. The burden of tooth loss in Italian elderly population living in nursing homes. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Bleiel D, Nitschke I, Noack MJ, Barbe AG. Impact of care level, setting and accommodation costs on a newly developed oral care nursing plan format for elderly patients with care needs - Results from a cross-sectional study. Int J Dent Hyg. 2022;20(3):543–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Girestam Croonquist C, Dalum J, Skott P, Sjögren P, Wårdh I, Morén E. Effects of Domiciliary Professional Oral Care for Care-Dependent Elderly in Nursing Homes - Oral Hygiene, Gingival Bleeding, Root Caries and Nursing Staff’s Oral Health Knowledge and Attitudes. Clin Interv Aging. 2020;6(15):1305–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Karuza J, Miller WA, Lieberman D, Ledenyi L, Thines T. Oral status and resident well-being in a skilled nursing facility population. Gerontologist. 1992;32(1):104–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Wyatt CCL. A 5-year follow-up of older adults residing in long-term care facilities: utilisation of a comprehensive dental programme. Gerodontology. 2009;26(4):282–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Nordenram G, Ljunggren G. Oral status, cognitive and functional capacity versus oral treatment need in nursing home residents: a comparison between assessments by dental and ward staff. Oral Dis. 2002;8(6):296–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Chiesi F, Grazzini M, Innocenti M, Giammarco B, Simoncini E, Garamella G, et al. Older People Living in Nursing Homes: An Oral Health Screening Survey in Florence, Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(18):3492. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183492.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Zenthöfer A, Navratil SD, Rammelsberg P, Cabrera T, Gorenc L, Urbanowitsch N, et al. Oral health and apraxia among institutionalized elderly people–a pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(2):150–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Chiang TC, Huang MS, Lu PL, Huang ST, Lin YC. The effect of oral care intervention on pneumonia hospitalization, Staphylococcus aureus distribution, and salivary bacterial concentration in Taiwan nursing home residents: a pilot study. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):374.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Overgaard C, Bøggild H, Hede B, Bagger M, Hartmann LG, Aagaard K. Improving oral health in nursing home residents: A cluster randomized trial of a shared oral care intervention. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2022;50(2):115–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Costa MJF, Lins CAdA, Macedo LPVd, Sousa VPSd, Duque JA, Souza MCd. Clinical and self-perceived oral health assessment of elderly residents in urban, rural, and institutionalized communities. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2019;74:e972.

  102. Frenkel H, Harvey I, Newcombe RG. Improving oral health in institutionalised elderly people by educating caregivers: a randomised controlled trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(4):289–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Maille G, Saliba-Serre B, Ferrandez AM, Ruquet M. Objective and perceived oral health status of elderly nursing home residents: a local survey in southern France. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;28(14):1141–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Empey G, Kiyak A, Milgrom P. Oral health in nursing homes. Spec Care Dentist. 1983;3(2):65–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Nam M, Uhm D. A comparative study of the effects of intra and extra circumoral exercise for older people on oral health at nursing homes: a non-equivalent trial. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(9):2114–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Roed-Petersen B, Renstrup G. A topographical classification of the oral mucosa suitable for electronic data processing. Its application to 560 leukoplakias. Acta Odontol Scand. 1969;27(6):681–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Chen L, Gu L, Li X, Chen W, Zhang L. Oral health matters in cognitive impaired aged residents in geriatric care facilities: A cross-sectional survey. Nurs Open. 2021;8(2):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Huppertz VAL, van der Putten GJ, Halfens RJG, Schols JMGA, de Groot LCPGM. Association Between Malnutrition and Oral Health in Dutch Nursing Home Residents: Results of the LPZ Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(11):948–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Yoon MN, Ickert C, Slaughter SE, Lengyel C, Carrier N, Keller H. Oral health status of long-term care residents in Canada: Results of a national cross-sectional study. Gerodontology. 2018;35(4):359–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Czwikla J, Herzberg A, Kapp S, Kloep S, Schmidt A, Rothgang H, et al. Home care recipients have poorer oral health than nursing home residents: Results from two German studies. J Dent. 2021;107:103607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Red A, O’Neal PV. Implementation of an Evidence-Based Oral Care Protocol to Improve the Delivery of Mouth Care in Nursing Home Residents. J Gerontol Nurs. 2020;46(5):33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Tsukada S, Ito K, Stegaroiu R, Shibata S, Ohuchi A. An oral health and function screening tool for nursing personnel of long-term care facilities to identify the need for dentist referral without preliminary training. Gerodontology. 2017;34(2):232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Tsakos G, Brocklehurst PR, Watson S, Verey A, Goulden N, Jenkins A, et al. Improving the oral health of older people in care homes (TOPIC): a protocol for a feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):138–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Chalmers JM, King PL, Spencer AJ, Wright FAC, Carter KD. The oral health assessment tool–validity and reliability. Aust Dent J. 2005;50(3):191–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Rantzow V, Andersson P, Lindmark U. Occurrence of oral health problems and planned measures in dependent older people in nursing care. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(23–24):4381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Johansson I, Jansson H, Lindmark U. Oral Health Status of Older Adults in Sweden Receiving Elder Care: Findings From Nursing Assessments. Nurs Res. 2016;65(3):215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Ribeiro MTF, Ferreira RC, Vargas AMD, Ferreira e Ferreira E. Validity and reproducibility of the revised oral assessment guide applied by community health workers. Gerodontology. 2014;31(2):101–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Julkunen L, Hiltunen K, Kautiainen H, Saarela RKT, Pitkälä KH, Mäntylä P. Oral disease burden of dentate older adults living in long-term care facilities: FINORAL study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):624–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Hoben M, Poss JW, Norton PG, Estabrooks CA. Oral/dental items in the resident assessment instrument - minimum Data Set 2.0 lack validity: results of a retrospective, longitudinal validation study. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:36 eCollection 2016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Thai PH, Shuman SK, Davidson GB. Nurses’ dental assessments and subsequent care in Minnesota nursing homes. Spec Care Dentist. 1997;17(1):13–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hutchinson AM, Milke DL, Maisey S, Johnson C, Squires JE, Teare G, et al. The Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set 2.0 quality indicators: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Kayser-Jones J, Bird WF, Paul SM, Long L, Schell ES. An instrument to assess the oral health status of nursing home residents. Gerontologist. 1995;35(6):814–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Chalmers JM, Pearson A. A systematic review of oral health assessment by nurses and carers for residents with dementia in residential care facilities. Spec Care Dentist. 2005;25(5):227–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Cutress TW, Ainamo J, Sardo-Infirri J. The community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN) procedure for population groups and individuals. Int Dent J. 1987;37(4):222–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Sischo L, Broder HL. Oral health-related quality of life: what, why, how, and future implications. J Dent Res. 2011;90(11):1264–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Krausch-Hofmann S, De Almeida MJ, Declerck D, Declercq A, De Lepeleire J, Tran TD, et al. The oral health-related section of the interRAI: Evaluation of test content validity by expert rating and assessment of potential reasons for inaccurate assessments based on focus group discussions with caregivers. Gerodontology. 2019;36(4):382–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Thapa R, Chimoriya R, Arora A. The development and psychometric properties of oral health assessment instruments used by non-dental professionals for nursing home residents: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):35–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Rodrigues LG, Sampaio AA, da Cruz CAG, Vettore MV, Ferreira RC. A systematic review of measurement instruments for oral health assessment of older adults in long-term care facilities by nondental professionals. Gerodontology. 2023;40(2):148–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Krausch-Hofmann S, Tran TD, Declerck D, de Almeida MJ, Declercq A, Lesaffre E, et al. Assessment of oral health conditions presented in photographs - is there a difference between dentists and non-dental professional caregivers? BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):188–x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Authors institutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gerodontology, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    M.H Bakker, M.J de Smit, A. Valentijn & A. Visser

  2. Department of Gerodontology, College of Dental Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    A. Visser

Authors
  1. M.H Bakker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M.J de Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Valentijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Visser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: MHB, MdS, AV, AVi – screening and assessing articles: MHB, MdS, AVi – first draft: MHB, AV – critical review of first draft: MdS, Avi – final version: MHB, MdS, AV, AVi.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M.H Bakker.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Bakker, M., de Smit, M., Valentijn, A. et al. Oral health assessment in institutionalized elderly: a scoping review. BMC Oral Health 24, 272 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04025-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04025-y

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us