Periodontal health literacy in Germany-Results of a telephone survey.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the periodontal health literacy of German adolescents, adults and senior residents. BACKGROUND: The prevalence of periodontitis is high. One explanation for this may be that people lack periodontal health literacy (PHL). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study. Former participants of the 5th German Oral Health Study (n = 333 16-year-olds, n = 307 39-48-year-olds, n = 332 69-78-year-olds) participated in a computer-assisted telephone interview. Open-ended questions (OEQs) were used to assess the participants' current knowledge. Corresponding single- and multiple-choice questions (SCQs and MCQs) supplemented the OEQs to allow detailed analyses of the nature of the knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Less than 10% of the participants in the three age groups could explain the term 'periodontitis' or select the correct answer in an SCQ. Responding to the OEQs, 89% of 16-year olds, 64% of 39-48-year-olds, and 59% of 69-78-year-olds, could not name any consequence of periodontitis, and 83%, 51%, and 60%, respectively, could not name any risk factors. The OEQs regarding proper oral hygiene behaviour revealed that participants lacked awareness regarding important aspects of oral hygiene (e.g., systematics) or areas to which they should pay attention to (e.g., interdental spaces and gingival margins). CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed PHL deficits in German adolescents, adults, and seniors and a need for community-based measures to improve PHL in all age groups. Dental teams should be aware that their patients might lack the PHL necessary for understanding and adherence to professional dental advice, and that they might even lack PHL regarding the proper use of oral hygiene devices.

Prevalence of malocclusions in 8- and 9-year-old children in Germany-Results of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6).

PURPOSE: Current population-wide data on the prevalence of malocclusions in 8­ and 9­year-old children in Germany are not available. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to collect data on the prevalence of malocclusions in 8­ and 9­year-old children in Germany. The secondary objective of this study was to use this information to derive the need for orthodontic care provision. METHODS: This is an oral-epidemiological investigation and social science survey at the national level with a focus on tooth and jaw misalignment. The investigation took place between January and March 2021 at 16 study centers across Germany. All relevant data were available for the 705 study participants and were included in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Overbite was the most common finding with 88.9%. Also widespread were crowding, with at least 60.9%, and lack of space, with a share of 30.9%. All other indication groups had a share below 10%. Rare (< 1%) were buccal and lingual occlusions and craniofacial abnormalities. The most severe forms of disease (Orthodontic Indication Group [Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, KIG] grade 5) were overbite (3.2%), open bite malocclusion (1.0%), undershot (0.6%), and craniofacial abnormalities (0.4%). The proportion of study participants who required orthodontic treatment, in accordance with statutory health insurance provider guidelines, was 40.4%. The proportion of study participants in principle requiring orthodontic treatment for medical reasons was 97.5%. Systemic differences in the need for orthodontic care provision relating to gender, region, or social status were not identified. CONCLUSION: In general, the need for care provision identified in the orthodontic indication groups corresponds to that shown in previous studies. This suggests that the need for orthodontic treatment in Germany has remained stable over the years.

Methodology of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6) to survey tooth and jaw misalignment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was (1) to complete and update the oral-epidemiological data situation in Germany (descriptive epidemiology) and (2) to determine the need for orthodontic treatment provision based on the epidemiological data situation (health care epidemiology in the form of demand research). METHODS: For this purpose, a longitudinal oral-epidemiological study and social science survey with a primary focus on tooth and jaw misalignment was conducted at a nationally representative level on 705 8­ and 9­year-old children across Germany. RESULTS: The methodological principles of the oral-epidemiological study are described, with a focus on the calibration and reliability assessment results from the study dentists, sample weighting, a survey of nonrespondents to estimate the extent of the external validity of the study results, a description of the study participants, and realized cases, as well as information pertaining to the response rate and utilization. CONCLUSION: Based on the conducted analyses, it can be assumed that the examined 8­ and 9­year-old study participants are representative of the statistical population in Germany.

Does orthodontic treatment need have an impact on oral health-related quality of life?

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) impairment in a national representative sample of 8 to 9 year olds in Germany and to evaluate the impact of orthodontic treatment need. METHODS: Data were collected in the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Sechste Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6) and subjects were sampled using a multistage sampling technique. OHRQoL was measured with a modified version of the 5­item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5) which was administered in a computer-assisted personal interview. Children were also examined for malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need. RESULTS: In all, 1892 children aged 8-9 years were invited to take part. Finally, data of 705 children (48.6% female) could be included in the analysis. The OHIP­5 mean was 1.3 (±2.0). There was no relevant influence from age and gender on the OHIP­5 summary scores (r < 0.10), but the summary scores differed when analyzed separately regarding orthodontic treatment need or no orthodontic treatment need (1.5 ± 2.0 vs. 1.2 ± 1.9, p = 0.020). Nevertheless, the level appears to be low. CONCLUSIONS: Malocclusions with orthodontic treatment need have an influence on OHRQoL.

Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6).

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the malocclusion indices KIG (Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, Orthodontic Indication Groups), ICON (Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need), and mIOTN (modified Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) regarding differences in malocclusion prevalence and their assessment of orthodontic treatment need in German 8­ to 9­year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6). METHODS: The necessary data for the calculation of the KIG, mIOTN, and ICON were collected by a dentist as part of a clinical orthodontic examination during the field phase of the DMS 6 and by a subsequent digital orthodontic model-analytical evaluation of intraoral scans of the dental arches and the occlusal situation in habitual occlusion. RESULTS: Prevalence, severity, and treatment need of tooth and jaw misalignments differed in part considerably depending on the index used for assessment. On the other hand, there were several outcomes which yielded quite similar results for the different indices used, such as orthodontic treatment need, which ranged from 40.4% (KIG) over 41.6% (ICON) to 44.2% (mIOTN). Interestingly, orthodontic treatment need for the individual subject could differ considerably, when assessed using different indices. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the results show that the mIOTN is much more conservative in assessing malocclusion prevalences often being smaller than those derived by KIG or ICON. In contrast, KIG and ICON often yield similar prevalences with certain distinct differences due to discrepancies in the respective definitions and also clearly differentiate between treatment possibility and arbitrarily determined treatment need.