A review of malocclusion among individuals with mental and physical disabilities

Oral health disparities between individuals with disabilities and the general population are widely reported in the literature, and malocclusion is no exception. As the number of people living with disabilities grows, so does the need to explore their oral health status. This review examines the reported prevalence of malocclusion in individuals with Down syndrome (DS), cerebral palsy (CP), cleft disorders, mental disabilities, and physical disabilities from 1976 to 2004. Malocclusion was assessed according to Angle's classifications, the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI), and selected occlusion characteristics. The prevalence of malocclusion was higher in individuals with disabilities than in controls without disabilities. Malocclusion was more frequent when the handicap was mental rather than physical in origin. Class II and Class III malocclusions were common in individuals with CP and DS, respectively. Crowding, anterior diastema, and > 1/2 cusp antero‐posterior molar relations were frequent among people with disabilities. Findings varied according to disability, but were attributed to musculoskeletal abnormalities, altered cranial‐base relationships, premature tooth eruption, corrective surgery, and lip incompetence. Only a deep bite was more frequent in controls compared to the individuals with disabilities.     

Caries Prevalence in Head Start Children, 1986–87

Since the early 1970s, caries prevalence among school-aged children in the United States has declined. It appears that a small percentage of the children experience most of the caries increment. In addition, a large proportion of children in the US who need dental care receive it. An important factor in the amount of treatment received by children is the socioeconomic status of the family. Data on caries prevalence among preschool populations are limited. The Head Start program serves low-income families in the US and offers a unique opportunity to look at individuals who may be at greater risk of health problems and may experience less access to health services. A survey of 1,796 three- to five-year old Head Start children from low-income families was conducted in 1986-87. Caries prevalence, baby bottle tooth decay prevalence and relative need for dental care are reported for fluoridated and non fluoridated communities in California, Hawaii, and Micronesia. The data reveal scores that are higher in the sample population than in five-year-olds in national surveys and among Head Start children in previous surveys.     

Nonstandard Lumbar Region in Predicting Fracture Risk

Femoral neck (FN) bone mineral density (BMD) is the most commonly used skeletal site to estimate fracture risk. The role of lumbar spine (LS) BMD in fracture risk prediction is less clear due to osteophytes that spuriously increase LS BMD, particularly at lower levels. The aim of this study was to compare fracture predictive ability of upper L1–L2 BMD with standard L2–L4 BMD and assess whether the addition of either LS site could improve fracture prediction over FN BMD. This study comprised a prospective cohort of 3016 women and men over 60?yr from the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study followed up for occurrence of minimal trauma fractures from 1989 to 2014. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure BMD at L1–L2, L2–L4, and FN at baseline. Fracture risks were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models separately for each site. Predictive performances were compared using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. There were 565 women and 179 men with a minimal trauma fracture during a mean of 11?±?7?yr. L1–L2 BMD T-score was significantly lower than L2–L4 T-score in both genders (p?<?0.0001). L1–L2 and L2–L4 BMD models had a similar fracture predictive ability. LS BMD was better than FN BMD in predicting vertebral fracture risk in women [area under the curve 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.68–0.79) vs 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.74), but FN was superior for hip fractures prediction in both women and men. The addition of L1–L2 or L2–L4 to FN BMD in women increased overall and vertebral predictive power compared with FN BMD alone by 1% and 4%, respectively (p?<?0.05). In an elderly population, L1–L2 is as good as but not better than L2–L4 site in predicting fracture risk. The addition of LS BMD to FN BMD provided a modest additional benefit in overall fracture risk. Further studies in individuals with spinal degenerative disease are needed.