The objective of this study was to investigate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in times of the COVID-19 pandemic and to examine a possible association to psychosocial factors like psychological stress and symptoms of depression and anxiety disorders. Secondary research questions were whether people changed oral hygiene regimens during the COVID-19 pandemic and to what extent dental symptoms existed and developed compared to pre-pandemic. For this cross-sectional study a survey has been conceptualized to determine OHRQoL, stress, depression and anxiety and their specific confounders in a German cohort. Validated questionnaires as OHIP-G14, PHQ-Stress and PHQ-4 have been implemented. Altogether 1178 participants completed the survey between May and August 2020. The overall OHIP-G14 sum score of 4.8 ± 7.5 indicated good OHRQoL. 21% of the participants (n = 248) reported toothache, 23% (n = 270) mucosal problems, 31% (n = 356) hypersensitivity of the teeth and 27% (n = 305) myofacial pain. The PHQ-Stress score (4.5 ± 3.5) demonstrated a mild severity of stress. Depression and anxiety level has been mild to moderate (PHQ-4 score: 2.4 ± 2.6). 38% of the participants stated subjectively greater emotional burden compared to pre-pandemic. Statistically significant differences exist for OHRQoL, stress, anxiety and depression levels between participants with greater, equal or less emotional burden compared to pre-pandemic. COVID-19 history and aggravated levels of depression, anxiety, and stress seem to associate with lower OHRQoL. Psychosocial consequences during pandemic times and their association to oral health should be further investigated.

Aim: To compare the Oral Health‐Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) of patients with mobile mandibular incisors before and after full‐mouth disinfection (FMD) with and without splinting.Material and methods: Thirty‐four periodontitis patients with ≥1 mobile mandibular incisor (degree II/III) were randomly allocated to the test or control group. All patients received FMD and the test group additional splinting of teeth 33–43. OHRQoL was assessed before (BL) and 3 months after FMD (RE) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)‐14. Data were compared within and between the groups (Wilcoxon test/Mann–Whitney U test).Results: Twenty‐eight patients (13 test group/15 control group) were re‐evaluated. FMD led to a reduction of the mean probing pocket depth (PPD; in mm) (test group: BL‐PPD 3.89 ± 1.03, RE‐PPD 2.82 ± 0.53; control group: BL‐PPD 3.58 ± 0.66, RE‐PPD 2.77 ± 0.59; each p ≤ .001), the mean clinical attachment level (CAL; in mm) (test group: BL‐CAL 5.22 ± 1.38, RE‐CAL 4.79 ± 0.85; control group: BL‐CAL 4.58 ± 1.10, RE‐CAL 4.41 ± 0.96; each p ≤ .05), and the mean OHIP‐14 summary scores (test group: BL‐OHIP 21.7 ± 11.06, RE‐OHIP 9.9 ± 8.96, p = .0046; control group: BL‐OHIP 16.8 ± 8.27, RE‐OHIP 11.7 ± 8.55; p = .0217). The reduction of the OHIP‐G14 scores was considerably higher in the test group but statistically not significant (p = .080).Conclusions: The results show a positive impact of non‐surgical periodontal treatment on OHRQoL and a possible tendency for further improvement by splinting mobile mandibular incisors.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association of explicitly severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with oral conditions considering in‐depth shared risk factors.Methods: A case–control study was conducted with 104 participants, 52 with severe COPD and 52 matched controls without COPD. Dental and periodontal status were clinically assessed and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) by OHIP‐G14‐questionnaire.Results: Between COPD‐ and control‐group, there were no statistically significant differences regarding age (66.02 ± 7.30), sex (female: 52 [50%]), smoking history (44.69 ± 23.23 pack years) and number of systemic diseases (2.60 ± 1.38). COPD patients demonstrated significantly fewer remaining teeth (12.58 ± 9.67 vs. 18.85 ± 6.24, p < 0.001) besides higher DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) index (21.12 ± 5.83 vs. 19.10 ± 3.91, p = 0.036). They had significantly greater probing pocket depths (PPD: 3.24 mm ± 0.71 mm vs. 2.7 mm ± 0.37 mm, p < 0.001) and bleeding on probing (BOP: 34.52% ± 22.03% vs. 22.85% ± 17.94%, p = 0.003) compared to controls, but showed no significant difference in clinical attachment level or staging of periodontitis. The OHIP‐G14 sum score was significantly higher in COPD patients (7.40 ± 7.28 vs. 3.63 ± 4.85, p = 0.002). Common risk factors such as educational status, physical activity, dentist visit frequency, oral hygiene regimens and dietary habits were less favourable in patients with COPD.Conclusions: COPD was significantly associated with higher tooth loss, PPD, BOP and DMFT besides lower OHRQoL.

Objectives: This comparative study aimed to evaluate intraoral digital photography (IODP) as assessment-tool for DMFT and number of implants (IMPL) compared to clinical diagnosis (CLIN) in an elderly population with high restorative status. Secondary research questions were whether an additional evaluation of panoramic radiographs (PAN-X) or raters’ clinical experience influence the agreement. Methods: Fifty patients (70.98±7.60 years) were enrolled for standardized CLIN and IODP. The clinical reference examiner and ten blinded raters evaluated the photographs without and with a PAN-X regarding DMFT and IMPL. CLIN were used as reference standard and differences to IODP and IODP-PAN-X findings were analysed descriptively. To assess intra-rater agreement, pairwise Gwet’s AC1s of the three diagnostic methods CLIN, IODP and IODP+PAN-X were calculated. Results: Compared to a DMFT of 22.10±3.75 (CLIN), blinded raters evaluated a DMFT of 21.54±3.40 (IODP) and 22.12±3.45 (IODP+PAN-X). Mean values for “Decayed” were 0.18±0.52 (CLIN), 0.45±0.46 (IODP) and 0.48±0.47 (IODP-PAN-X), while 11.02±5.97 (CLIN), 10.66±5.78 (IODP) and 10.93±5.91 (IODP+PAN-X) were determined for “Missing” and 10.90±5.61 (CLIN), 10.43±4.85 (IODP) and 10.71±5.11 (IODP+PAN-X) for “Filled”. IMPL were 0.78±2.04 (CLIN), 0.58±1.43 (IODP), 0.78±2.04 (IODP+PAN-X). Gwet’s AC1 using the mode of the blinded raters’ assessment of "Decayed", "Missing" and IMPL compared to CLIN ranged from 0.81 to 0.89 (IODP) and 0.87 to 1.00 (IODP+PAN-X), while for "Filled" and DMFT they were 0.29 and 0.36 (IODP) as well as 0.33 and 0.36 (IODP+PAN-X), respectively. Clinical experience did not influence the agreement. Conclusions: Assessment of “Decayed”, “Missing” and IMPL by IODP showed almost perfect agreement, whereas of “Filled” and DMFT revealed fair to moderate agreement with clinical findings. Additional PAN-X-evaluation increased agreement compared to IODP-diagnostics alone. IODP for the assessment of DMFT and IMPL might be a suitable method in large-scale epidemiological studies, considering high agreement in total values and miscellaneous agreement at patient-level.