Premium
The association of oral status with systemic health, quality of life, and economic productivity
Author(s) -
Hollister MC,
Weintraub JA
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.53
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1930-7837
pISSN - 0022-0337
DOI - 10.1002/j.0022-0337.1993.57.12.tb02821.x
Subject(s) - medicine , quality of life (healthcare) , population , dentures , affect (linguistics) , anxiety , feeling , intensive care medicine , dentistry , environmental health , psychology , psychiatry , nursing , communication , social psychology
It is well established that many systemic adverse health conditions have manifestations in the oral cavity. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the available scientific evidence that describes the opposite effect, how adverse oral health conditions affect three aspects of daily living: 1) systemic health, 2) quality of life, and 3) economic productivity. Examples of oral health affecting systemic health include rheumatic fever patients who develop infective endocarditis from oral bacteria and organ transplant patients who develop severe complications from oral infections. Both systemic health and quality of life are compromised when edentulousness, xerostomia, soft tissue lesions, or poorly fitting dentures affect eating and food choices. Conditions such as oral clefts, missing teeth, severe malocclusion, or severe caries are associated with feelings of embarrassment, withdrawal, and anxiety. Oral and facial pain from dentures, temporomandibular joint disorders, and oral infections affect social interaction and daily behaviors. The results of oral disorders can be felt not only physically and socially but also economically in our society. Dental disease accounts for many lost work and school days. Lower wage earners and minorities are disproportionately affected. Although there are many studies that evaluate these relationships, most are case reports, cross‐sectional studies, or studies restricted to small or unique population groups. Lack of standardized measurements make comparisons across studies difficult. More population‐based and longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the nature of these relationships.