Journals / Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care / 2016 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

Determination of Oral Health Status in Patients Admitted to a University Hospital: A Pilot Study

Pages
196–204
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This emphasizes the importance of familiarity, awareness, and differentiation of these lesions and conditions to avoid unnecessary treatments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Oral mucosa, tongue, dentition and bone are important parameters for oral and systemic health care.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: This study was conducted in a group of 314 dental outpatients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This emphasizes the importance of familiarity, awareness, and differentiation of these lesions and conditions to avoid unnecessary treatments.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Oral health · oral mucosal lesions · tooth anomalies

Abstract

Aim: Oral mucosa, tongue, dentition and bone are important parameters for oral and systemic health care. A wide variety of lesions and conditions, either harmless or harmful, can affect the oral cavity. Identification and treatment of these conditions are an important part of oral health care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the general oral health status, by assessing the prevalence and types of mucosal, tongue, dental and jaw lesions, in a group of patients. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in a group of 314 dental outpatients. Participants’ oral mucosal, tongue, dental, jaw lesions and their locations were recorded. Data were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Results: Three hundred and fourteen patients (40.1% female, 59.9% male), 148 (47.1%) of whom exhibited one or more mucosal lesions, 40 (12.7%) tongue lesions, 242 (77.1%) one or more acquired dental conditions, 61 (19.4%) one or more dental anomalies, and 22 (7.0%) bone manifestations in the jaws. The most commonly detected mucosal lesions were Fordyce’s granules (20.1%), linea alba buccalis (16.9%), melanoplakia (15.9%), and frictional keratosis (2.5%). Fissured tongue (8.0%), geographic tongue (1.6%), lingual varicosity (1.3%) and coated tongue (1.3%) were the most commonly determined tongue lesions. The most commonly detected dental anomalies were hypodontia (6.1%), microdontia (4.1%), dilaceration (4.1%), and enamel hypoplasia (2.5%). Exostoses (4.1%), enostoses (1.0%) and fibro-osseous lesions (1.0%) were the most commonly detected bone manifestations in the jaws. Conclusion: Oral mucosal and tongue lesions could be a sign of systemic diseases and also could form a base for oral cancers. In this study oral mucosal lesions and tongue lesions prevalence were high but fortunately all the detected conditions were harmless, benign conditions. This emphasizes the importance of familiarity, awareness, and differentiation of these lesions and conditions to avoid unnecessary treatments.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKÇİÇEK, G., DOĞRU, H. B., AVCU, N. (2016). Determination of Oral Health Status in Patients Admitted to a University Hospital: A Pilot Study. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 196–204. https://ajindex.com/articles/371188

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Langlais RP, Miller CS. Color atlas of common oral diseases. Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1992. p.12-23, 34, 42-99
  2. Triantos D. Intra-oral findings and general health conditions among institutionalized and non-institutionalized elderly in Greece. J Oral Pathol Med 2005; 34: 577-582
  3. Avcu N, Kanli A. The prevalence of tongue lesions in 5150 Turkish dental outpatients. Oral Dis 2003; 9: 188-195
  4. Cebeci ARİ, Gülşahı A, Kamburoğlu K, Orhan BK, Öztaş B. Prevalence and distribution of oral mucosal lesions in an adult Turkish population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14: E272-E277
  5. Ghanaei FM, Joukar F, Rabiei M, Dadashzadeh A, Valeshabad AK. Prevalence of oral mucosal lesions in an adult Iranian population. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2013; 15: 600-604
  6. Altug-Atac AT, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 510-514
  7. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral Radiology Principles and Interpretation. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri; 2004.p.330-383, 410-457, 485-515
  8. Gökalp S, Güçiz Doğan B, Tekçiçek M, Berberoğlu A, Ünlüer Ş. The oral health profile of adults and elderly, Turkey-2004. Hacettepe Diş Hek Fak Derg 2007; 4: 11-18
  9. Kulak-Özkan Y, Ozkan Y, Kazazoglu E, Arikan A. Dental caries prevalence, tooth brushing and periodontal status in 150 young people in İstanbul: A pilot study. Int Dent J 2001; 51: 451-456
  10. Parlak AH, Koybasi S, Yavuz T, Yesildal N, Anul H, Aydogan I, et al. Prevalence of oral lesions in 13- to 16-year-old students in Duzce, Turkey. Oral Dis 2006; 12: 553-558
  11. Mumcu G, Cimilli H, Sur H, Hayran O, Atalay T. Prevalence and distribution of oral lesions: a cross-sectional study in Turkey. Oral Dis 2005; 11: 81-87
  12. World Health Organization. Oral health surveys, basic methods 4th ed. Geneva WHO 1997: p.32-33
  13. Feng J, Zhou Z, Shen X, Wang Y, Shi L, Wang Y, et al. Prevalence and distribution of oral mucosal lesions: a cross-sectional study in Shanghai, China. J Oral Pathol Med 2015; 44: 490-494
  14. Kovac-Kavcic M, Skaleric U. The prevalence of oral mucosal lesions in a population in Ljubljana, Slovenia. J Oral Pathol Med 2000; 29: 331-335
  15. Reichart PA. Oral mucosal lesions in a representative cross-sectional study of aging Germans. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000; 28: 390-398
  16. Jainkittivong A, Aneksuk V, Langlais RP. Oral mucosal conditions in eldery dental patients. Oral Dis 2002; 8: 218-223
  17. Mathew AL, Pai KM, Sholapurkar AA,