Shared Risk Factors for Constipation, Fecal Incontinence, and Combined Symptoms in Older U.S. Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of constipation, fecal incontinence (FI), and combined symptoms and to identify shared factors associated with bowel symptoms in older U.S. men and women DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional study. SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005-2010). PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 50 and older. MEASUREMENTS: Constipation was defined as hard stool consistency on the validated Bristol Stool Form Scale or stool frequency of fewer than three bowel movements per week. FI was defined as at least monthly loss of solid, liquid, or mucus stool. Combined symptoms was defined as constipation and FI. Multinomial multivarible models adjusted for age, race, socioeconomic status, education, self-rated health, depression, impairments in activities of daily living, and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: Women (n = 3,078) reported higher prevalence of bowel symptoms than men (constipation 11.8% vs 4.7%%, FI 11.2% vs 8.6%, combined symptoms 1.4% vs 0.4%). In adjusted models, women had greater odds of having constipation (odds ratio (OR) = 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.3-3.8), FI (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8), and combined symptoms (OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 2.0-10.2) than men. Shared risk factors included poor self-rated health and depression symptoms (constipation: OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4-2.4 and OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.0-3.2; FI: OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.2 and OR = 2.3 95% CI = 1.4-3.6; combined symptoms: OR = 2.6 95% CI = 1.5-4.8 and OR = 4.6, 95% CI = 1.3-16.4). CONCLUSION: When defining constipation and FI using validated instruments, women had a much higher prevalence of constipation than men, whereas men had a higher prevalence of FI than constipation. Shared risk factors reflect the negative effect that bowel symptoms have on quality of life.

Buccal Bone Thickness in the Esthetic Zone of Postmenopausal Women: A CBCT Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare bone thickness buccal to the teeth in the esthetic zone of postmenopausal women, premenopausal women, younger men and older men. METHODS: Retrospective data were randomly selected from 4 groups: 59 premenopausal women, 60 postmenopausal women, 60 men less than age 50, and 60 men more than 50. Half-root and bone crest landmarks were identified on each participant's cone beam computed tomography for teeth 7 to 10 and 23 to 26. Buccal bone thickness was measured by calibrated examiners. Group averages were calculated and compared between groups using analysis of variance (P < 0.05). RESULTS: When comparing premenopausal to postmenopausal women and postmenopausal women to older men, anterior bone thickness was significantly different for tooth maxillary and mandibular lateral incisors and overall maxillary and mandibular central incisors. In addition, significant differences were observed between these groups within the maxilla comparing lateral incisors, central incisors (P < 0.05), and within the mandible when comparing lateral and central incisors at (P < 0.05) at bone crest and half-root, respectively. CONCLUSION: Buccal bone in the anterior esthetic zone bone is thin in all segments of the population, but significantly thinner in postmenopausal women. In this cohort, when anterior implants are planned, it is essential to make informed treatment planning decisions. Strategies are available to manage the thinner bony housing, but require further research specific to this growing consumer cohort.

Can the FRAX tool be a useful aid for clinicians in referring women for periodontal care?

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare periodontitis severity in postmenopausal women whose FRAX (World Health Organization Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) scores indicate a major risk for osteoporotic fracture (OPF) versus controls. METHODS: Participant charts from the Case/Cleveland Clinic Postmenopausal Wellness Collaboration 853-sample database were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) aged between 51 and 80 years; (2) menopause for more than 1 year but less than 10 years; (3) nonsmoker; (4) hemoglobin A1c less than 7; and (5) no glucocorticoid, hormone, RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand) inhibitor, or bisphosphonate therapy within 5 years. FRAX score was calculated, and participants were organized into two groups: women with major OPF risk (FRAX scores >20%) and controls. Periodontal data were obtained from the charts. T test was used to assess differences in periodontal parameters between groups. RESULTS: Ninety participants had FRAX scores higher than 20% and were considered to have high OPF risk; 98 participants served as controls. Probing depth (mean [SD], 2.75 [0.66] vs 2.2 [0.57]), clinical attachment loss (3.15 [0.78] vs 2.73 [0.66]), alveolar bone height (0.58 [0.03] vs 0.60 [0.02]), and tooth loss (5.6 [1.96] vs 3.84 [1.94]) were significantly different between groups, whereas plaque score and bleeding on probing were not. CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal women whose FRAX scores suggest major OPF risk have significantly more severe periodontitis endpoints than controls even though oral hygiene scores do not significantly differ. These findings suggest to clinicians treating women after menopause that referral to a periodontist for disease screening may be appropriate for those women with high fracture risk based on FRAX scores.