Oral hygiene and oral health in older people with dementia: a comprehensive review with focus on oral soft tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of older people with dementia and a natural dentition is growing. Recently, a systematic review concerning the oral health of older people with dementia with the focus on diseases of oral hard tissues was published. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive literature overview following a systematic approach of the level of oral hygiene and oral health status in older people with dementia with focus on oral soft tissues. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The following search terms were used: dementia and oral health or stomatognathic disease. A critical appraisal of the included studies was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and Delphi list. RESULTS: The searches yielded 549 unique articles, of which 36 were included for critical appraisal and data extraction. The included studies suggest that older people with dementia had high scores for gingival bleeding, periodontitis, plaque, and assistance for oral care. In addition, candidiasis, stomatitis, and reduced salivary flow were frequently present in older people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in the current systematic review suggest that older people with dementia have high levels of plaque and many oral health problems related to oral soft tissues, such as gingival bleeding, periodontal pockets, stomatitis, mucosal lesions, and reduced salivary flow. SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE FOR STUDY: With the aging of the population, a higher prevalence of dementia and an increase in oral health problems can be expected. It is of interest to have an overview of the prevalence of oral problems in people with dementia. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Older people with dementia have multiple oral health problems related to oral soft tissues, such as gingival bleeding, periodontal pockets, mucosal lesions, and reduced salivary flow. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The oral health and hygiene of older people with dementia is not sufficient and could be improved with oral care education of formal and informal caregivers and regular professional dental care to people with dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".