Abstract Objective: To determine the associations between four validated multidimensional self-report frailty scales and nine indices of oral health in communitydwelling older persons. Materials and Methods: This pilot study was conducted in a sample of 208 older persons aged 70 years and older who visited two dental practices in the Netherlands. Frailty status was measured by four different self-report frailty questionnaires: Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Sunfrail Checklist (SC), and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). Oral health was assessed by two calibrated examiners. Results: The prevalence of frailty according to the four frailty measures TFI, GFI, SC, and SPQ was 32.8%, 31.5%, 24.5%, and 49.7%, respectively. The SC correlated with four oral health variables (DMFT, number of teeth, percentage of occlusal contacts, Plaque Index), the TFI with three (number of teeth, percentage of occlusal contacts, Plaque Index), the GFI only with DPSI, and the SPQ with the number of teeth and the number of occlusal contacts. Conclusion: Of the studiedmultidimensional frailty scales, the SC and TFIwere correlated with most oral health variables (four and three, respectively). However, it should be noticed that these correlations were small. Clinical relevance: The SCand TFImight help to identify older people with risk of poor oral health so that preventive care can be used to ensure deterioration of oral health and maintenance of quality of life. Vice versa early detection of frailty by oral care professionals could contribute to interprofessional management of frailty.
Background: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was threefold: 1. to identify existing definitions of oral frailty and similar terms in gerodontology literature; 2. to assess the oral frailty definitions and analyze whether these are well formulated on a conceptual level; and 3. in the absence of existing definitions meeting the criteria for good conceptual definitions, a new conceptual definition of oral frailty will be presented. Methods: A search was performed in electronic databases and internet search engines. Studies explaining or defining oral frailty or similar terms were of interest. A software-aided procedure was performed to screen titles and abstracts and identify definitions of oral frailty and similar terms. We used a guide to assess the quality of the oral frailty definitions on methodological, linguistic, and content-related criteria. Results: Of the 1,528 screened articles, 47 full-texts were reviewed. Thirteen of these contained seven definitions of oral frailty and ten definitions of similar terms. We found that all definitions of oral frailty contain the same or equivalent characteristics used to define the concepts of ’oral health’, ’deterioration of oral function’, and ’oral hypofunction’. Between the seven definitions, oral frailty is described with a different number and combination of characteristics, resulting in a lack of conceptual consistency. None of the definitions of oral frailty met all criteria. Conclusion: According to our analysis, the current definitions of oral frailty cannot be considered ’good’ conceptual definitions. Therefore, we proposed a new conceptual definition: Oral frailty is the age-related functional decline of orofacial structures.
