Premium
Periodontal conditions among the middle‐aged and the elderly in Hong Kong
Author(s) -
Holmgren Christopher J.,
Corbet Esmonde F.,
Lim L. P.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
community dentistry and oral epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1600-0528
pISSN - 0301-5661
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01600.x
Subject(s) - medicine , gingival recession , cohort , dentistry , clinical attachment loss , bleeding on probing , tooth loss , cohort study , gingival and periodontal pocket , periodontitis , demography , oral health , sociology
The aim of this study was to describe the periodontal conditions in 372 35–44‐yr‐old and 537 noninstitutionalized 65–74‐yr‐old Hong Kong Chinese who were examined clinically for loss of attachment, recession, probing depth, calculus, and bleeding after probing. Community Periodontal Index (CPI) data and treatment need indications were compiled from index teeth or their substitutes. The prevalence of loss of attachment varied considerably in both cohorts according to the definition of the threshold (≥6, ≥9, and ≥12 mm, respectively). The mean numbers of teeth with loss of attachment at the ≥6‐mm threshold and at higher thresholds were small. In both age cohorts, about one‐fifth of subjects had probing depths ≥6‐mm, while al the ≥9‐mm threshold only 2–3% were so affected. Although recession was an important component of loss of attachment in the younger cohort, in the older cohort the prevalence and extent of recession were greater than for probing depths at thresholds ≥4 mm. All subjects had one or more teeth with calculus, bleeding, or both, most teeth being so affected. Eighty‐four of the 537 65–74‐yr‐old subjects were excluded either because of edentulousness or because extractions indicated for the remaining teeth would have rendered the subjects edentulous. The distribution of subjects according to their highest CPI score was remarkably similar for the two cohorts. No subjects in either age group were assessed as “healthy” (CPI code 0) or had “bleeding only” (code 1) as their highest score. While most subjects scored CPI code 2 or 3 us their highest score, only 17% of the younger and 15% of the older cohort scored Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) code 4. Differences in the mean number of sextants affected by CPI codes between the two cohorts were mainly due to a greater number of excluded sextants in the older cohort. CPI findings for 35–44‐yr‐olds differed little from those reported in 1984.