ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9877-7640
Current Organisation
ACTA
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-09-2019
DOI: 10.1111/JOOR.12871
Abstract: Distress, suffering and care-seeking behaviour are characteristics of pain-related disease and illness. Pain that transitions from an acute to a chronic phase carries with it the potential of further effects: these include a worsening of the disease or illness high-impact chronic pain and substantial personal, societal and economic burden. The biopsychosocial model directly addresses these multiple processes, yet clinical frameworks supporting this model are not universally implemented. This paper explores barriers to clinical implementation of a full biopsychosocial framework for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and other oro-facial pain (OFP) conditions. In June 2016, INfORM invited OFP researchers to a workshop designed to optimise the DC/TMD Axis-II. Workshop groups identified five sources of implementation barriers: (1) cultures and societies, (2) levels-of-care settings, (3) health services, (4) cross-cultural validity of self-report instruments and (5) provider and patient health literacy. Three core problems emerged: (A) mental health aspects are seldom fully considered, thus impairing the recognition of illness, (B) training in use of validated multi-axial assessment protocols is under-rated and insufficiently used, and (C) clinical assessment often fails to recognise that sensory and emotional dimensions are fundamental aspects of pain. To improve patient care, these barriers and problems require action. Most importantly, TMD/OFP educators and researchers need to coordinate globally and (i) be educated in the biopsychosocial model, (ii) implement evidence-based biopsychosocial guidelines for assessment and management of OFP conditions at their institutions, (iii) incorporate this model in undergraduate and postgraduate dental curricula and (iv) be responsive to stakeholders, including regulatory authorities and practitioners.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-09-2018
DOI: 10.1111/JOOR.12708
Abstract: The aim of this study was to examine and compare the oral function of older people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. This cross-sectional observational study included participants with MCI or dementia aged 60 years or older. Global cognitive functioning was evaluated with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the oral function was evaluated with subjective and objective assessments, including the perceived quality of chewing and swallowing, the function of the prostheses, the number of occluding pairs (OP), the degree of tooth wear and the active and passive maximum mouth opening. The quality of chewing and swallowing was perceived as good in, respectively, 86.0% and 90.9% of the participants. Full or partial prostheses were worn by 63.8% of the participants, and the retention was good in 58.4% of the upper and 50.0% of the lower prostheses. Participants with MCI had a median of 3.0 (Inter Quartile Range [IQR] 0.0-7.5) occluding pairs, while participants with dementia had a median of 0.0 (IQR 0.0-1.0) occluding pairs, U = 3838.50, P < 0.001. There was a weak positive correlation between the number of occluding pairs and the MMSE score, r = 0.267, also when adjusted for age, r = 0.230. The median tooth wear score was 2.0 (IQR 2.0-2.0) in participants with MCI or dementia. The active maximum mouth opening was 45.8 (SD 9.3) mm in participants with dementia, while it was 49.8 (SD 8.1) mm in those with MCI, t(253) = 2.67, P = 0.008. For most participants with MCI or dementia, the swallowing ability and chewing ability were perceived as good. In addition, more than half of the prostheses had good retention and occlusion. Participants with more severe cognitive impairment had fewer occluding pairs and a smaller active mouth opening. The degree of tooth wear was less than one-third of the clinical crown in most participants with MCI or dementia.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 12-09-2020
Abstract: The number of people aged 65 years or older is growing substantially. As a result of increased health burden and tooth retention, more oral health problems are expected in this age group. A poor oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) can compromise a person’s psychological state, social relationships, personal beliefs, and physical health. The aim of this systematic review was to identify oral health factors associated with OHQoL in people aged 65 years or older and to give a comprehensive overview of the body of literature for each oral health factor separately. A comprehensive search was performed in five databases. The following terms were used as index terms or free-text words: “Oral Health,” “Quality of Life,” “Older People.” Two researchers independently assessed studies for eligibility based on predefined criteria. Of 3,702 references retrieved from the databases, 68 studies were eligible and included (9 randomized clinical trials, 6 cohort studies, and 53 cross-sectional studies). All results were reported descriptively. OHQoL in people aged 65 years or older is positively associated with higher number of teeth, higher number of occluding pairs, implant-retained overdentures, and the shortened dental arch concept and negatively associated with xerostomia, orofacial pain, and poor chewing ability. In the current literature, there is no consensus on the association between edentulism, caries, and periodontal conditions and OHQoL. Having a functional dentition (either natural or prosthetic) is important for a good OHQoL, whereas painful or functional complaints are associated with impaired OHQoL.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-05-2021
DOI: 10.1111/JOOR.13175
Abstract: Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self‐reported or proxy‐reported signs and symptoms there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations. To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents. A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro‐facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five‐item Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next. After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed. Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.JEBDP.2021.101648
Abstract: As pain cannot be measured objectively, the use of patient reported outcomes (PROs), and specifically dental PROs (dPROs), is essential for adequate assessment and management of the patient with orofacial pain. For orofacial pain conditions, some of the suitable PROs are specific to dentistry and hence can be labelled dPROs, whereas others are not. There is also a need to understand which outcomes and domains are most relevant to the patient with pain complaints within the context of the biopsychosocial model. Acute pain in the orofacial area is most often related to toothache, whereas the most common chronic orofacial pain are temporomandibular disorders. Other chronic pains in the orofacial area include neuropathic pain and unknown or idiopathic pain. PROs have been fundamental in the development of both screening procedures and diagnostic criteria in temporomandibular disorders. PROs are now often a prerequisite for the most common temporomandibular disorder pain diagnoses. Furthermore, PROs form the basis for decision-making with regard to treatment, prognostics, and referrals. Future areas of development include the standardized use of PROs in the screening and diagnostics of the less common orofacial pain conditions, together with development of core outcomes sets and standardized protocols for the use of PROs in evaluation of treatment including efficacy, compliance, adherence, and side-effects.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-10-2018
DOI: 10.1111/JOOR.12724
No related grants have been discovered for Frank Lobbezoo.