International Journal of Dentistry

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 705047, 8 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/705047

Research Article

Factors Related to Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Independent Brazilian Elderly

Karla Giovana Bavaresco Ulinski,¹ Mariele Andrade do Nascimento,² Arinilson Moreira Chaves Lima,¹ Ana Raquel Benetti,1,3 Regina Célia Poli-Frederico,¹ Karen Barros Parron Fernandes,¹ Marina Lourdes Calvo Fracasso,² and Sandra Mara Maciel1,2

¹Department of Preventive and Operative Dentistry, University of North Parana, Londrina, PR, Brazil

²Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa, Maringa, PR, Brazil

³Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Received 28 September 2012; Revised 5 January 2013; Accepted 5 February 2013

Academic Editor: F. N. Hugo

Copyright © 2013 Karla Giovana Bavaresco Ulinski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the factors associated with the impact of oral health on the quality of life in a sample of 504 Brazilian independent elderly. Data collection included oral examinations and structured interviews. The simplified form of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) was used to measure OHRQoL. Information on sociodemographic characteristics, use of dental services, and subjective measures of health was collected. Poisson regression within a hierarchical model was used to data analyses. The following variables were associated with a negative impact on OHRQoL: female gender (PR = 1.40; CI 95%: 1.11–1.77); lower class (PR = 1.58; CI 95%: 1.13–2.20); up to 3 occluding pairs of posterior teeth (PR = 1.88; CI 95%: 1.13–3.14); at least one untreated caries (PR = 1.28; CI 95%: 1.06–1.54); curative reasons for the last dental appointment (PR = 1.52; CI 95%: 1.15–2.00); poor self-perception of oral health (PR = 2.49; CI 95%: 1.92–3.24); and poor perception of dental care provided (PR = 1.34; CI 95%: 1.12–1.59). The younger elderly also noticed this negative impact. These findings showed that the clinical, sociodemographic, and subjective factors evaluated exerted a negative impact on OHRQoL in elderly people. Health authorities must address all these factors when planning interventions on oral health for this population.

1. Introduction

The health of the elderly is increasingly awakening the interest of researchers, since aging of the population, once seen as a phenomenon, is now a reality both in developed and developing countries [1]. It is estimated that by 2040 the developing countries will have 1 billion people aged 60 or over [2]. Given the great velocity and extent of this growth, care with this specific group is essential, so they can age healthily and with quality of life [3]. Oral health is among the factors that can exert influence on the quality of life of the elderly, since poor oral health conditions result in difficulty in chewing, speaking, or even in the relationships with other people [4–6].

In recent years a significant increase can be observed in studies on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in the elderly. The impact of oral health on quality of life broadens the sources of information from epidemiological research beyond just clinical indicators [7, 8]. Therefore, various instruments have been developed, including the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49), in order to measure people’s perceptions of the social impact of oral disorders on their wellbeing. OHIP-49 was developed in Australia by Slade and Spencer [9]. Later, Slade [10] published a reduced version of this instrument, the OHIP-14. Although previous publications have used OHIP-14 to evaluate the influence of oral health on quality of life of the elderly [5, 11–13], only few studies have based their analysis using a theoretical hierarchical approach.

Different models have been used to support the social determinants of health, among which the model proposed by Victora et al. [14] employs hierarchical frameworks to investigate the determinants of diseases by using multivariate analysis techniques. Although OHRQoL was not focused, that model has already been used in oral health studies and sustains the theory that sociodemographic conditions can determine oral morbidities and the use of health services, which in turn may have an influence on the elder’s perception of his/her oral health [7, 15].

Considering that oral health might have a negative impact on the quality of life, the purpose of this study was to assess which factors are associated with this impact among elderly, living independently in the southern region of Brazil.

2. Methods

This cross-sectional study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the North Paraná University (pp.0070/09). The target population was comprised of independent elderly people, without physical and mental disabilities, aged 60 and over of both gender, from 38 primary healthcare centres in the urban region of Londrina, PR, Brazil. Other health indicators have been analyzed in this elderly population from the municipality, as part of a broader investigation conducted by the group of Interdisciplinary Aging and Longevity Study. It is worth noting that 85% of the elderly population commonly uses the Brazilian public health system in that city.

From a total of 43.610 individuals, a representative sample size was defined as 343 elderly, but 177 participants were added in order to compensate for sample loss (). Participants were randomly selected from information received from the primary healthcare centres. Stratified random sampling was used considering the city’s five regions, obtaining 15% from the central region, 27% from the northern region, 23% from the southern region, 19% from the eastern region, and 16% from the western region. All participants signed an informed consent form.

Oral health was assessed through the experience and severity of dental caries (DMFT index), the presence of edentulism, and the use of and need for prosthesis according to criteria defined by the World Health Organization [16]. The dental exams were performed at the dental clinic of the University of North Parana, by a single examiner and intraexaminer agreement (kappa coefficient = 0.97) was considered excellent.

The instrument used to measure the impact of oral health on the quality of life of the elderly people was the OHIP-14 [10], which psychometric properties were previously validated in Portuguese [11]. The questionnaire is comprised of fourteen questions, corresponding to seven dimensions: functional limitation, pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap. There are five possible answers for each question, according to the Likert-type scale: never, rarely, occasionally, frequently, and always. Answers were coded from 0 (never) to 4 (always), and OHIP-14 scores were calculated by the additive method. All the answers were added to produce a total score, which could vary between 0 and 56; whereby the higher the OHIP-14 score, the poorer the OHRQoL.

Initially, a descriptive analysis was made of the OHIP-14 results; thus, percentage distributions, mean, standard deviation, and median scores were obtained. Subsequently, the dependent variable was obtained by the dichotomization of the total OHIP-14 score, based on the median score (in this case 6). Therefore, all scores greater than 6 implied in having negative impact on OHRQoL, while all scores lower or equal to 6 represented not having negative impact on OHRQoL. The questionnaire was applied individually by two trained interviewers, and in addition to the OHRQoL interview (OHIP-14), other information was also collected. Variables were grouped from distal to proximal factors associated with having negative impact in quality of life in four blocks: block 1 = sociodemographic factors, block 2 = oral health conditions and needs, block 3 = use of dental services, and block 4 = subjective conditions, following a theoretical hierarchical model [14].

The following variables comprised the sociodemographic factors in block 1: gender (female/male); age (60–64 years, 65–74 years, 75 or over years); origin (rural area, urban area); companionship (none, with companionship); skin colour (white, nonwhite); schooling (up to 4 years, more than 4 years); economic class (upper, lower, according to the Brazilian Economic Classification criteria).

The oral health conditions and needs in block 2 were comprised of number of teeth (edentulous, 1–19 teeth, ≥20 teeth); occluding pairs of posterior teeth (up to 3, more than 3); use of any type of prosthesis (yes, no); untreated caries lesions (none, at least one); need for any type of prosthesis (yes, no).

The use of dental services in block 3 was composed by visits to dental service (regular visits, not regular); last dental appointment (≤1 year, >1 year); type of dental service (public, private); reasons for seeking the last dental appointment (preventive, curative).

The subjective conditions in block 4 were self-perception of overall health (very good/good, fair, and very poor/poor); self-perception of oral health (very good/good, fair, and very poor/poor); perception of dental care at the last appointment (good, poor). The questionnaire used was the same used in the last nationwide epidemiological survey carried out in Brazil with the purpose of obtaining a diagnosis of the population’s oral health [17].

Poisson regression models with robust variance and adjustment for design effects were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), version 15.0. Bivariate analysis was performed at each hierarchical block. Results were presented as prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). In the multivariable analysis, variables were controlled for all others in the same block (horizontal), and those with a significant level of 5% or lower were retained to the next block down (vertical), thus characterizing the adjusted hierarchical model.

3. Results

Five hundred and four out of 520 elderly completed all aspects of the oral research (response rate of 96.9%). Regarding the sociodemographic factors (block 1), the average age was 69.5 years. The following characteristics were predominant: female gender (66.3%), white skin colour (62.1%), rural origin (53.8%), and with companionship (65.1%). The majority (80.5%) had schooling up to 4 years and belonged to the lower economic class (83.5%).

When considering oral health conditions and needs (block 2), mean DMFT index was 26.1 (SD = 8.6): 87.1%, 8.9%, and 3.8% of the index accounted for the missing, filled, and decayed components, respectively. Almost half (47.4%) of the studied population was edentulous, and only 12.3% had ≥20 teeth. It is important to point out that 73.4% had no upper teeth, and 49.4% had no lower teeth. Regarding the use of and need for prosthesis, 60.3% used some type of prosthesis, 37.9% accounted for total prosthesis, and 54.5% needed full dentures in either the upper or lower jaw.

In relation to the use of dental services (block 3), most of the participants did not visit the dentist regularly (95.4%) and had their last dental appointment >1 year (73.2%) in the private sector (77.2%) for curative reasons (93.8%).

Regarding the subjective conditions (block 4), participants perceived their overall health as very good/good (38.1%), fair (47%), or very poor/poor (14.9%); their oral health as very good/good (40.5%), fair (25.6%), or very poor/poor (33.9%). Most perceived dental care at the last appointment as good (76.4%).

Mean OHIP-14 scores were 9.1 (SD = 9.5), and median was 6.0. No negative impact of oral health on quality of life (score 0) was registered in 15.1% of the sample. A higher percentage of individuals reported to be concerned about their oral health and were uncomfortable to eat (Table 1). When considering the dimensions of OHIP-14, the highest means were registered for physical pain and psychological discomfort (Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of responses (%) to OHIP-14 items, mean and median scores subscales.

Conceptual domains and questions
Never (0)/hardly ever (1)
Occasionally (2)
Very often (3)/fairly often (4)
Mean (SD)
Median (range)

Functional limitation

1.34 (1.90)
0 (0–8)

    Trouble pronouncing words
71.8
17.9
10.3

    Felt sense of taste worsened
82.8
8.1
9.1

Physical pain

2.11 (2.19)
2 (0–8)

    Had painful aching in mouth
70.3
17.6
12.1

    Uncomfortable to eat foods
58.7
20.0
21.3

Psychological discomfort

2.02 (2.44)
1 (0–8)

    Been self-conscious
57.4
19.0
23.6

    Felt tense
78.2
9.7
12.1

Physical disability

1.37 (1.99)
0 (0–8)

    Diet been unsatisfactory
73.0
12.7
14.3

    Had to interrupt meals
82.1
11.4
6.5

Psychological disability

1.45 (2.06)
0 (0–8)

    Difficult to relax
87.7
5.2
7.1

    Been a bit embarrassed
66.7
14.7
18.6

Social disability

0.43 (1.17)
0 (0–8)

    Irritable with other people
92.9
3.4
3.7

    Difficult doing usual jobs
93.6
3.6
2.8

Handicap

0.39 (1.19)
0 (0–8)

    Felt life less satisfying
90.8
4.0
5.2

    Totally unable to function
96.6
2.0
1.4

Total OHIP-14

9.10 (9.47)
6 (0–56)

Variables identified in the bivariate analysis (Table 2) that were associated to having negative impact on OHRQoL were for the 4 blocks: block 1—female gender, age 60–64 years, and lower economic class; block 2—up to 3 occluding pairs of posterior teeth, at least one untreated caries lesion; block 3—seeking the public dental service for curative reasons in the last dental appointment; block 4—very poor/poor self-perception of overall health and oral health, poor perception of dental care at the last appointment.

Table 2: Poisson bivariate analysis of factors associated with having negative impact on OHRQoL in Brazilian elderly ().

Variables
Having negative impact

Yes
Unadjusted PR
CI 95%
value

%

Block 1: sociodemographic factors

Gender

    Male
58
34.1
1

    Female
171
51.2
1.50
(1.18–1.89)
0.001

Age

    60–64 years
75
58.6
1

    65–74 years
113
41.4
0.70
(0.57–0.86)
0.001

    75 or over
41
39.8
0.67
(0.51–0.90)
0.007

Geography

    Urban
108
46.4
1

    Rural
121
44.6
0.96
(0.79–1.16)
0.702

Living arrangements

    Not alone
147
44.8
1

    Alone
82
46.6
1.04
(0.85–1.26)
0.702

Ethnicity

    White
148
47.3
1

    Nonwhite
81
42.4
0.89
(0.73–1.09)
0.292

Education

    >4 years
42
42.9
1

    ≤4 years
187
46.1
1.07
(0.83–1.38)
0.575

Economical class

    Upper/upper middle
25
30.1
1

    Lower middle/lower
204
48.5
1.60
(1.14–2.26)
0.006

Block 2: oral health conditions and needs

Number of teeth

    ≥20
24
38.7
1

    <1–19
103
50.7
1.31
(0.93–1.84)
0.120

    Edentulous
102
42.7
1.10
(0.78–1.55)
0.580

Posterior occlusal pairs

    ≥3
11
26.8
1

    <3
218
47.1
1.75
(1.04–2.93)
0.032

Use of prosthesis

    No
29
38.2
1

    Yes
200
46.7
1.22
(0.90–1.65)
0.191

Untreated dental caries

    No
139
42.1
1

    At least one
90
51.7
1.22
(1.01–1.49)
0.035

Prosthetic need

    No
44
40.4
1

    Yes
185
46.8
1.16
(0.90–1.49)
0.246

Block 3: use of dental services

Pattern of dental attendance

    Regular
6
26.1
1

    Irregular
223
46.4
1.77
(0.89–3.56)
0.105

Time since last dental visit

    ≤1 year
66
48.9
1

    1 year
163
44.2
0.90
(0.73–1.11)
0.337

Site of last dental visit

    Private/agreements
167
42.9
1

    Public
62
53.9
1.25
(1.02–1.54)
0.029

Reason for dental visit

    Checkup, exam, or clean
209
44.2
1

    Pain/problem
20
64.5
1.46
(1.10–1.93)
0.008

Block 4: subjective conditions

Self-rating general status

    Good/very good
66
34.4
1

    Fair
122
51.5
1.59
(1.19–2.11)
0.001

    Poor/very poor
41
54.7
1.49
(1.18–1.88)
0.001

Self-rating of oral health

    Good/very good
51
25.0
1

    Fair
52
40.3
1.61
(1.17–2.21)
0.003

    Poor/very poor
126
73.7
2.94
(2.28–3.80)
0.000

Perception of the last query

    Good
154
40.0
1

    Poor
75
63.0
1.57
(1.31–1.89)
0.000

From the multivariate analysis (Table 3), the previously reported variables remained associated with negative impact on OHRQoL, with exception of site of last dental visit (block 3) and self-rating general status (block 4).

Table 3: Poisson multivariate analysis of factors associated with having negative impact on OHRQoL in Brazilian elderly ().

Variables
Adjusted PR
CI 95%
value

Block 1: sociodemographic factors

Gender

    Male
1

    Female
1.40
(1.11–1.77)
0.004

Age

    60–64 years
1

    65–74 years
0.72
(0.59–0.88)
0.001

    75 or over
0.68
(0.52–0.90)
0.006

Economical class

    Upper/upper middle
1

    Lower middle/lower
1.58
(1.13–2.20)
0.008

Block 2: oral health conditions and needs

Posterior occlusal pairs

    ≥3
1

    <3
1.88
(1.13–3.14)
0.015

Untreated dental caries

    No
1

    At least one
1.28
(1.06–1.54)
0.010

Block 3: use of dental services

Reason for dental visit

    Checkup, exam, or clean
1

    Pain/problem
1.52
(1.15–2.00)
0.003

Block 4: subjective conditions

Self-rating of oral health

    Good/very good
1

    Fair
1.48
(1.08–2.02)
0.014

    Poor/very poor
2.49
(1.92–3.24)
<0.001

Perception of the last query

    Good
1

    Poor
1.34
(1.12–1.59)
0.001

4. Discussion

All the hierarchical blocks proposed in this study resulted in at least one significant variable associated with having negative impact on OHRQoL.

Among the sociodemographic variables, the female gender, the age between 60–64 years, and the lower economic class had negative impact on OHRQoL. When considering gender, women, even in similar clinical conditions to men, have been more unsatisfied with their appearance [18] and demonstrated greater perception of oral conditions [19–21] and higher complains regarding pain and the ability to chew [22].

Despite the evidence that oral health worsens with aging [23], in the present study, having negative impact on OHRQoL was inversely proportional to age, that is, the higher the age, the lower the OHIP-14 scores. A similar fact was also reported by McGrath and Bedi [24] and by Steele et al. [5], who observed that adults perceived a greater impact on OHRQoL than the elderly. Thus, it is presumed that the elderly become more tolerant towards oral health problems that result from aging [25].

The association between impact on OHRQoL and lower economic class of the elderly in this study is consistent with previous publications [10, 26]. This supports the fact that the less privileged class had less access to the dental services, despite their worse oral health condition [27]. As consequence, the accumulation and aggravation of oral problems may negatively impact on their quality of life [28]. Schooling, on the other hand, did not produce a high impact on OHRQoL in the population from this study, contrary to the reported by Atchison and Gift [29], who observed that individuals with lower schooling perceived a higher impact on OHRQoL.

In respect to the oral health conditions and needs, the high DMFT index and the high prevalence of edentulism observed in this study are similar to the ones reported in the latest epidemiological national survey [17] as well as other studies involving elderly Brazilians [30, 31]. These data reflect the Brazilian healthcare model, which historically has been centred on curative practices, often involving mutilation [32]. Surprisingly, the number of remaining teeth did not particularly influence the quality of life of the investigated elderly. The latest observation was also reported by Kim et al. [12] and may possibly be explained by the fact that tooth loss is associated with aging as a natural and inevitable process [29, 33]. This finding corroborates with previous reports that identified a positive perception from the majority of the elderly, in spite of their poor oral health [34, 35]. However, having fewer than three occluding pairs of posterior teeth had negative impact on OHRQoL, which is in accordance with previous findings [36–38] and can be explained by their importance to the masticatory ability [39]. Relationships between chewing ability and quality of life have been also found in elderly populations in countries such as Japan, Korea, and Great Britain [12, 39, 40]. The poor oral condition implies in greater treatment needs. During the validation of OHIP-14 in Brazil, significant higher treatment needs due to dental caries were associated with negative impact on OHRQoL [11], in agreement with the findings from this study.

The need for and use of dental prosthesis among the elderly, on the other hand, were not associated with having negative impact on OHRQoL. Silva et al. [41] suggested that, although the absence of teeth and the use of deficient prosthesis do not interfere in daily activities or social relations, these conditions result in negative impacts on some of the OHIP dimensions, such as psychological discomfort, pain, and physical disability. In our study, higher scores in the dimensions “physical pain” and “psychological discomfort” were observed, similar to previous publications [12, 41, 42].

In this context, physical pain and psychological discomfort may exert a direct influence on the search for dental services. In the present study, pain or curative needs were the main reason related to the latest dental appointment and had negative impact on OHRQoL. This reinforces the idea that oral healthcare in Brazil has been based mainly on a curative approach. For many decades in the country, the oral healthcare has focused on school children, what consequently means that these assistance programmes excluded adults and the elderly who, for the most part, only received care in cases of dental emergencies [15]. It is also interesting to point out that only 26% of the elderly reported having used the public service for their last dental appointment, although all the participants from this study were registered in the public health system. The impact of the use of the public oral healthcare on OHRQoL was evident in the bivariate analysis, but this was not retained in the multivariate hierarchical analysis. Additionally, the elderly that reported poor service in their last dental appointment demonstrated higher OHIP-14 scores when compared to the ones who perceived the service as good.

The subjective conditions also exert influence on OHRQoL, since the perception of individuals is more strongly influenced by self-evaluation than by objective parameters of their condition itself [43]. In this study, higher rates of negative impact on OHRQoL were found in elders with poor self-perception of oral health. Associations between the poor self-perception of oral health and its negative impact on OHRQoL have been well defined in the literature [11, 12, 41, 43].

The findings of the present study suggest that in order to assess and gain a better understanding on OHRQoL of elderly people, in addition to clinical conditions, sociodemographic profile and subjective conditions also have to be taken into consideration.

Although the investigated population was representative of medium-sized municipalities, it should be noted that the sample was comprised of individuals registered in the primary healthcare centres. Therefore, the socioeconomic profile of the investigated population corresponds to the group of elderly who use the public health system in a specific southern municipality in Brazil. Considering the marked regional differences within Brazil, caution is recommended before generalizing the results from the present study. In addition, it is important to recall the cross-sectional nature of this study, and as such, it affords limitations that are typical of this kind of investigation. It is suggested that other surveys are carried out in order to establish a longitudinal perspective.

5. Conclusion

Clinical, sociodemographic, and subjective factors showed to have a negative impact on OHRQoL of the elderly people studied. Health authorities must address all these factors when planning interventions on oral health for this population.

References

L. B. Shrestha, “Population aging in developing countries,” Health Affairs, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 204–212, 2000.

K. Kinsella and W. He, An Aging World: 2008, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.

R. Veras, “Population aging today: demands, challenges and innovations,” Revista de Saude Publica, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 548–554, 2009.

P. E. Petersen, “The World Oral Health Report 2003: Continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—The approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 3–24, 2003.

J. G. Steele, A. E. Sanders, G. D. Slade et al., “How do age and tooth loss affect oral health impacts and quality of life? a study comparing two national samples,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 107–114, 2004.

E. Musacchio, E. Perissinotto, P. Binotto et al., “Tooth loss in the elderly and its association with nutritional status, socio-economic and lifestyle factors,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 78–86, 2007.

M. P. Pattussi, K. G. Peres, A. F. Boing, M. A. Peres, and J. S. D. da Costa, “Self-rated oral health and associated factors in Brazilian elders,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 348–359, 2010.

U. Stenman, M. Ahlqwist, C. Björkelund, and M. Hakeberg, “Oral health-related quality of life—associations with oral health and conditions in Swedish 70-year-old individuals,” Gerodontology, vol. 29, pp. e440–e446, 2012.

G. D. Slade and A. J. Spencer, “Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile,” Community Dental Health, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–11, 1994.

G. D. Slade, “Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 284–290, 1997.

B. H. de Oliveira and P. Nadanovsky, “Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile—Short form,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 307–314, 2005.

H. Y. Kim, M. S. Jang, C. P. Chung et al., “Chewing function impacts oral health-related quality of life among institutionalized and community-dwelling Korean elders,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 468–476, 2009.

V. Johansson, B. Axtelius, B. Söderfeldt, F. Sampogna, J. Paulander, and K. Sondell, “Multivariate analyses of patient financial systems and oral health-related quality of life,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 436–444, 2010.

C. G. Victora, S. R. Huttly, S. C. Fuchs, and M. T. A. Olinto, “The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 224–227, 1997.

R. S. Moreira, L. S. Nico, and M. L. Sousa, “Factors associated with subjective need for dental treatment in elderly Brazilians,” Cadernos de Saúde Pública, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2661–2671, 2009.

World Health Organization, Oral Health Surveys—Basic Methods, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.

Ministry of Health of Brazil, SB Brazil 2010 Project: National Research on Oral Health. Main Results, Ministry of Health, Brasilia, Brazil, 2011.

U. Klages, A. Bruckner, and A. Zentner, “Dental aesthetics, self-awareness, and oral health-related quality of life in young adults,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 507–514, 2004.

A. N. Åstrøm, O. Haugejorden, E. Skaret, T. A. Trovik, and K. S. Klock, “Oral impacts on daily performance in Norwegian adults: validity, reliability and prevalence estimates,” European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 289–296, 2005.

S. R. Baker, C. L. Pankhurst, and P. G. Robinson, “Utility of two oral health-related quality-of-life measures in patients with xerostomia,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 351–362, 2006.

J. Mason, M. S. Pearce, A. W. G. Walls, L. Parker, and J. G. Steele, “How do factors at different stages of the lifecourse contribute to oral-health-related quality of life in middle age for men and women?” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 257–261, 2006.

D. Locker, “The burden of oral disorders in a population of older adults,” Community Dental Health, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 109–124, 1992.

L. B. Rihs, D. D. da Silva, and M. L. R. de Sousa, “Dental caries and tooth loss in adults in a Brazilian southeastern state,” Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 392–396, 2009.

C. McGrath and R. Bedi, “Why are we “weighting” an assessment of a self-weighting approach to measuring oral health-related quality of life,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 19–24, 2004.

A. F. Bulgarelli and A. R. Manço, “A population of elderly and their satisfaction with their oral health,” Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, vol. 13, pp. 1165–1174, 2008.

A. E. Sanders, G. D. Slade, S. Lim, and S. T. Reisine, “Impact of oral disease on quality of life in the US and Australian populations,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 171–181, 2009.

J. A. Kieser and H. T. Groeneveld, “Inequalities in the pattern of dental delivery in South Africa,” The Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 327–331, 1995.

D. L. Matos, M. F. Lima-Costa, H. L. Guera, and W. Marcenes, “Bambuí project: an evaluation of private, public and unionized dental services,” Revista de Saude Publica, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 237–243, 2002.

K. A. Atchison and H. C. Gift, “Perceived oral health in a diverse sample,” Advances in Dental Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 272–280, 1997.

D. C. Mendes, F. De Oliveira Poswar, M. V. De Oliveira, et al., “Analysis of socio-demographic and systemic health factors and the normative conditions of oral health care in a population of the Brazilian elderly,” Gerodontology, vol. 29, pp. e206–e214, 2012.

F. N. Hugo, J. B. Hilgert, M. L. de Sousa, D. D. da Silva, and G. A. Pucca Jr., “Correlates of partial tooth loss and edentulism in the Brazilian elderly,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 224–232, 2007.

R. S. Moreira, L. S. Nico, N. E. Tomita, and T. Ruiz, “Oral health of Brazilian elderly: a systematic review of epidemiologic status and dental care access,” Cad Saúde Pública, vol. 21, pp. 1665–1675, 2005.

M. S. Chen and P. Hunter, “Oral health and quality of life in New Zealand: a social perspective,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1213–1222, 1996.

R. E. Matthias, K. A. Atchison, J. E. Lubben, F. De Jong, and S. O. Schweitzer, “Factors affecting self-ratings of oral health,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 197–204, 1995.

A. Jokovic and D. Locker, “Dissatisfaction with oral health status in an older adult population,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 1997.

G. Tsakos, W. Marcenes, and A. Sheiham, “The relationship between clinical dental status and oral impacts in an elderly population,” Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 211–220, 2004.

A. J. Hassel, U. Koke, M. Schmitter, and P. Rammelsberg, “Factors associated with oral health-related quality of life in institutionalized elderly,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2006.

A. E. Gerritsen, P. F. Allen, D. J. Witter, E. M. Bronkhorst, and N. H. J. Creugers, “Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 8, article 126, 2010.

Y. Takata, T. Ansai, S. Awano et al., “Chewing ability and quality of life in an 80-year-old population,” Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 330–334, 2006.

A. Sheiham, J. G. Steele, W. Marcenes, G. Tsakos, S. Finch, and A. W. G. Walls, “Prevalence of impacts of dental and oral disorders and their effects on eating among older people; a national survey in Great Britain,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 195–203, 2001.

M. E. Silva, E. L. Villaça, C. S. Magalhães, and E. F. Ferreira, “Impact of tooth loss in quality of life,” Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, vol. 15, pp. 841–850, 2010.

G. Heydecke, L. A. Tedesco, C. Kowalski, and M. R. Inglehart, “Complete dentures and oral health-related quality of life—do coping styles matter?” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 297–306, 2004.

A. M. E. De Barros Lima Martins, S. M. Barreto, and I. A. Pordeus, “Objective and subjective factors related to self-rated oral health among the elderly,” Cadernos de Saude Publica, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 421–435, 2009.