search for




 

A Study on Oral Health Awareness and Oral Health Behavior Factors for the Elderly over 65 in Some Areas
Int J Clin Prev Dent 2022;18(3):83-95
Published online September 30, 2022;  https://doi.org/10.15236/ijcpd.2022.18.3.83
© 2022 International Journal of Clinical Preventive Dentistry.

Ji-Yeon Kwak1, Cheon-Hee Lee2

1Department of Social Welfare Graduate School of Konkuk University, Seoul, 2Department of Dental Hygiene, Andong Sciences College, Andong, Korea
Correspondence to: Cheon-Hee Lee
E-mail: arisu0515@hanmail.net
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3203-8025
Received September 29, 2022; Revised September 29, 2022; Accepted September 30, 2022.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Objective: Considering the need for oral health in the elderly, and analyzing factors and practices affecting the oral health of the elderly based on this, an in-depth theoretical review was conducted to analyze the factors affecting the oral health of the elderly on life in old age.
Methods: The data collection for this study was conducted from October 7 to November 20, 2013 in Nowon-gu. People over 65 who visit local general hospitals, individual internal medicine clinics, and individual dental clinics. After explaining the purpose, content and purpose of this study to the elderly, consent. It is difficult to read the text as a questionnaire in a total of five structured chapters targeting only one person. The interview was conducted in the form of an interview in consideration of the characteristics.
Results: As for the general characteristics of all respondents, in terms of gender, 29 male respondents (41.4%) and 41 female respondents (58.6%) were oral health perception factors, oral health behavior factors, and the meaning of life according to academic background. It was found that the higher the educational level, the more positive the perception of the meaning of life.
Conclusion: Tooth brushing education and oral health education for preventive management of oral diseases. Policies and policies that enable the elderly related to health promotion to receive education easily and conveniently. It is necessary to find a method, and the accessibility of the medical period is also convenient to use. I should be able to get dental care easily.
Keywords : oral health, satisfaction with life, national health policy
Introduction

In recent years, the elderly population is rapidly increasing due to the extension of life expectancy worldwide.

is increasing the dictionary meaning of the word old is a person who is old and old. In general, normal social life due to decline in physical, psychological, social, and functioning. A person who experiences difficulties in carrying out. Accor-ding to the Elderly Welfare Act enacted in 1981, people aged 65 and over are referred to as the elderly. In Korea, the average life expectancy in 1960 was 53 years for men and 57.8 years for women. The number of males increased rapidly to 67.1 years and females 73.6 years. In 2000, for the first time in 2000, the population aged 65 and over exceeded 7% of the total population, creating an aging society classified by the United Nations. In 2018, the elderly population in Korea accounted for 14% of the total population is expected to be. In an aging society, the number of elderly people increases. It refers to an increase in the proportion of the elderly in the ward, and in an aging society, 14% of the population aged 65 years or older is more than 7% of the total population. The United Nations defines it as an aged society if it is above 20% and a super-aged society if it is above 20%. Among the health and medical problems related to the health of the elderly, it is important to live a happy life. One of the factors is oral health. The oral cavity is a place where systemic diseases and vaginal. If oral health is poor by ingesting nutrition through in order to cultivate people’s sense of value and responsibility for health. To disseminate knowledge and create conditions for people to practice a healthy life on their own, according to Article 23 of the National Health Promotion Act, which aims to promote the health of for dental home filling business, fluoride solution brushing business, for the promotion of oral health. You can understand the importance of oral health, such as projects prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare [1]. In a survey asking about the importance of oral health, the percentage of respondents who answered that oral health was the most important than any other problem was 19.8% aged 20-29 years, 41.7% aged 40-49 years, 60 aged [2]. Among them, oral health for the elderly can determine the overall health status [3]. If you have poor oral health, you may not be able to chew food well, which lowers the digestive function and directly affects the anorexia of the elderly. Changes in the digestive system and slowing and activity of sensory organs such as taste and smell because of the decrease in volume. In particular, the decrease in taste function, along with decreased salivation and tooth loss, has the greatest effect on food intake in the elderly.

According to a study by a Danish research team published in the American Journal of Gerontology, older people.

If this dental care is not done properly, aging is accelerated and cognitive function deteriorates was reported to be.

According to a study by a Danish research team published in the American Journal of Gerontology, older people. If this dental care is not done properly, aging is accelerated and cognitive function deteriorates was reported to be loss of teeth affects the pronunciation and appearance of interpersonal relationships and it limits the smooth social life and promotes social isolation and isolation. Tooth loss can affect an indivi-dual’s quality of life because it causes [4]. The representative diseases of oral health are dental caries and periodontal disease. It is one of the most common diseases in our body [5].

Oral health is a very important and essential element for maintaining health of the elderly [6], and it has been reported that oral hygiene is essential as a health indicator for the elderly [7]. Since the improvement of health and quality of life is emerging as an important social concern [8], and in particular, the improvement of oral health is closely related to the improvement of the quality of life. The Health Act guarantees the minimum legal basis and system for planning and implementing a systematic oral health project at the government level [9]. The purpose of this study is to identify and study the oral health conditions of the elderly over 65 years of age. In addition to strong health, we collect countermeasures to manage a better quality of life i want to color it [10].

Materials and Methods

1. Subjects

Considering the need for oral health in the elderly, and analyzing factors and practices affecting the oral health of the elderly.

This is an in-depth theoretical review of the topic, and based on the theoretical background, it is an empirical analysis of the factors affecting the oral health of the elderly on their life in old age.

In addition, the purpose of this study is to find alternatives to improve the oral care and quality of life of the elderly based on the results of empirical analysis.

2. Experimental method

Subjective oral health status, oral health knowledge, and management practices of the elderly, centered on the elderly 65 years and older living in Nowon-gu, are related to oral health. In November 2013, he visited a dental and general hospital to find out about the impact was conducted through questionnaires to the patients.

The tools used in this study were Park [4], Bae [5], Woo [6], etc. Combination of questionnaires whose reliability was evaluated in previous research data for the purpose of this study did. In this study, demographic and social characteristics (gender, age, education years, Bowel level ) Oral health cognitive factors include tooth extraction, scaling, denture storage, and oral health. The factors affecting strong health were the experience of regular visits to the dentist for preventive purposes, and the

Dental visit experience, number of times of tooth brushing, experience of tooth brushing education, use of oral products. It is composed of whether or not the and each item was measured on a 5-point scale.

3. Statistics

According to the general characteristics of the respondents, oral health and quality of life. In order to analyze whether there is a difference in the perception of this Independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for through this, gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, oral health status.

To find out whether there is a difference in the perception of the factors affecting the quality of life of the elderly according to the type we want to see.

Results

1. Analysis of demographic and sociological characteristics of survey subjects

As for the general characteristics of gender, there were 29 male respondents (41.4%) and 41 female respondents (58.6%), indicating that female respondents accounted for a rather high proportion. 29 (41.4%) showed the largest distribution.

In addition, as for educational background, 22 respondents (31.4%) had elementary school graduation or less, and 19 people (27.1%) graduated from middle school (Table 1).

Table 1 . General characteristics of respondents

ItemDivisionN%
GenderMan2941.4
Woman4158.6
Total70100.0
Age65>68.6
65≤, <702941.4
70≤,<802637.1
80≤912.9
Total70100.0
EducationLess than elementary school graduation2231.4
Middle school graduation1927.1
High school graduation1521.4
University graduation1420.0
Total70100.0
ReligionBuddhism1724.3
Catholic57.1
Christian2434.3
Atheism2028.6
Etc45.7
Total70100.0
Family typeAlone912.9
Couple only2535.7
Live with children3347.1
Etc34.3
Total70100.0
Physical healthBad1318.6
Usually3347.1
Good2434.3
Total70100.0
Oral healthBad2231.4
Usually3955.7
Good912.9
Total70100.0


2. Analysis of difference in perception of oral health cognitive factors

1) Differences in perception on common sense of denture management

It was 4.88 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents.

There was no statistically significant difference among respondents regarding common sense of denture management in gender, age, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status (p<.05) (Table 2-1).

Table 2 -1. Differences in perception of common sense of denture management

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Common sense of denture careGenderMan291.930.456−0.3090.758
Woman411.970.494
Age65>62.120.2040.7940.501
65≤, <70292.000.421
70≤,<80261.850.464
80≤92.000.750
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.680.4514.8880.004
Middle school graduation192.110.394
High school graduation152.180.359
University graduation141.930.548
ReligionBuddhism172.040.2760.7590.556
Catholic52.200.570
Christian241.920.525
Atheism201.850.540
Etc42.000.408
Family typeAlone91.940.5830.0630.979
Couple only251.980.509
Live with children331.930.455
Etc32.000.000
Physical healthBad131.960.3200.2130.808
Usually331.920.460
Good242.000.571
Oral healthBad221.850.5011.4340.246
Usually392.040.478
Good91.830.354

2) Differences in the perception of common sense related to tooth extraction

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 8.941 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents. In the analysis according to family type, the F value was 2.866 (p<.05) showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2. Differences in perception of common sense related to tooth extraction

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Common sense about tooth extractionGenderMan292.020.7730.0280.978
Woman412.010.711
Age65>62.580.8011.4370.240
65≤, <70292.000.655
70≤,<80261.900.735
80≤92.000.866
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.450.6358.9410.000
Middle school graduation192.130.642
High school graduation152.330.724
University graduation142.390.487
ReligionBuddhism171.880.6741.6250.179
Catholic52.600.548
Christian242.170.789
Atheism201.830.634
Etc41.881.031
Family typeAlone91.560.5832.8660.043
Couple only251.900.722
Live with children332.170.725
Etc32.670.577
Physical healthBad131.960.7760.0660.936
Usually332.050.711
Good242.000.766
Oral healthBad221.980.7150.4380.647
Usually392.080.748
Good91.830.750

3) Differences in perception of common sense of gum care

In classification according to gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status, there was no statistically significant difference between respondents on common sense of gum care (p<.05) (Table 2-3).

Table 2-3. Differences in perception of common sense of gum care

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Gum care common senseGenderMan291.930.530−0.2690.789
Woman411.970.562
Age65>62.110.4640.2060.892
65≤, <70291.950.569
70≤,<80261.910.554
80≤91.960.564
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.910.5560.1700.916
Middle school graduation191.980.613
High school graduation151.910.347
University graduation142.020.647
ReligionBuddhism172.020.5220.7030.593
Catholic52.070.760
Christian242.030.581
Atheism201.780.510
Etc41.920.319
Family typeAlone91.960.5390.3430.794
Couple only251.890.542
Live with children331.970.568
Etc32.220.509
Physical healthBad132.100.3700.6510.525
Usually331.900.638
Good241.940.488
Oral healthBad221.910.5760.2290.796
Usually391.990.554
Good91.890.471

4) Different perception of common sense related to tooth gapping

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 4.054 (p<.05), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 2-4).

Table 2-4. Differences in perception of common sense related to gaping teeth

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Common knowledge about teeth gapingGenderMan292.000.720−0.6190.538
Woman412.110.737
Age65>62.420.8010.8950.449
65≤, <70292.120.677
70≤, <80262.000.812
80≤91.830.559
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.660.7774.0540.010
Middle school graduation192.180.628
High school graduation152.200.751
University graduation142.390.487
ReligionBuddhism172.000.8483.7780.008
Catholic52.700.447
Christian242.330.717
Atheism201.700.523
Etc41.750.289
Family typeAlone91.440.6822.7890.047
Couple only252.200.677
Live with children332.140.742
Etc32.000.000
Physical healthBad131.880.6820.5450.582
Usually332.080.751
Good242.150.729
Oral healthBad222.090.6480.5160.599
Usually392.100.771
Good91.830.750

5) Differences in recognition of coverage of medical insurance

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to gender, the t value was −2.753 (p<.01), indicating that there was no statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents.

Appeared to be in classification according to age, educational background, family type, and physical health status.

No statistically significant difference among respondents for health insurance coverage (p<.05) (Table 2-5).

Table 2-5. Differences in recognition of medical insurance coverage

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Medical insurance coverage rangeGenderMan292.170.966−2.7530.009
Woman412.730.596
Age65>62.830.4081.8250.151
65≤, <70292.620.775
70≤, <80262.460.811
80≤91.991.001
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.270.9351.4980.223
Middle school graduation192.410.841
High school graduation152.800.561
University graduation142.640.745
ReligionBuddhism172.820.5402.1490.085
Catholic52.400.894
Christian242.630.770
Atheism202.100.912
Etc42.501.000
Family typeAlone92.320.8720.7370.534
Couple only252.400.913
Live with children332.580.751
Etc33.000.000
Physical healthBad132.770.4392.0600.135
Usually332.300.919
Good242.630.770
Oral healthBad222.730.7032.6940.075
Usually392.480.793
Good92.001.000


3. Analysis of differences in perception of oral health behavior factors

1) Differences in perception of regular oral examinations

In the analysis according to educational background, the F value was 3.270 (p<.05), indicating that respondents’ perception.

It was found that there was a statistically significant dif-ference. In terms of physical health, the F value was 2.532 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Differences in awareness of regular oral examination

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Oral regular check-upGenderMan291.450.506−1.1260.264
Woman411.590.499
Age65>61.670.5160.7500.526
65≤, <70291.590.501
70≤, <80261.500.510
80≤91.330.500
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.270.4563.2700.027
Middle school graduation191.580.507
High school graduation151.670.488
University graduation141.710.469
ReligionBuddhism171.590.5075.5100.001
Catholic52.000.000
Christian241.710.464
Atheism201.200.410
Etc41.250.500
Family typeAlone91.220.4412.8630.043
Couple only251.600.500
Live with children331.610.496
Etc31.000.000
Physical healthBad131.380.5062.5320.087
Usually331.450.506
Good241.710.464
Oral healthBad221.590.5030.3080.736
Usually391.510.506
Good91.440.527

2) Differences in perception of regular scaling treatment

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 2.193 (p< .1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the respondents’ perception. p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Differences in recognition of scaling regular treatment

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Scaling regular treatmentGenderMan291.410.568−1.2160.228
Woman411.590.591
Age65>61.500.5480.0570.982
65≤, <70291.480.509
70≤, <80261.540.582
80≤91.560.882
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.270.4562.1930.097
Middle school graduation191.580.507
High school graduation151.730.704
University graduation141.570.646
ReligionBuddhism171.650.6063.9620.006
Catholic51.600.548
Christian241.750.608
Atheism201.150.366
Etc41.250.500
Family typeAlone91.220.4411.3810.256
Couple only251.480.510
Live with children331.640.653
Etc31.330.577
Physical healthBad131.380.5068.6370.000
Usually331.300.467
Good241.880.612
Oral healthBad221.680.7161.3360.270
Usually391.440.502
Good91.440.527

3) Differences in perception of brushing frequency

The F value was 2.91 (p<.1) in the analysis of cognitive differences between groups according to age, the F value was 8.37 (p<.01) in the analysis according to educational background, and the F value was 5.617 (p<.01) in the analysis according to religion. To the perceptions of respondents it was found that there was a statistically significant difference (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Differences in recognition of brushing frequenc

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Brushing frequencyGenderMan292.450.870−0.8280.410
Woman412.661.153
Age65>63.331.0332.2910.086
65≤, <70292.661.010
70≤, <80262.230.992
80≤92.781.093
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.090.8118.3370.000
Middle school graduation192.160.765
High school graduation153.070.961
University graduation143.361.151
ReligionBuddhism172.350.8625.6170.001
Catholic54.201.304
Christian242.790.932
Atheism202.200.834
Etc42.001.155
Family typeAlone91.670.8662.9840.037
Couple only252.680.748
Live with children332.761.173
Etc32.331.155
Physical healthBad131.920.7603.3470.041
Usually332.761.200
Good242.670.816
Oral healthBad222.770.9222.4700.092
Usually392.621.138
Good91.890.601

4) Differences in perception of brushing teeth after meals

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 10.855 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. Differences in perception of brushing teeth after meals

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Brushing teeth after mealsGenderMan292.050.665−1.2430.218
Woman412.240.650
Age65>62.500.8370.7020.554
65≤, <70292.100.643
70≤, <80262.120.573
80≤92.260.846
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.800.54110.8550.000
Middle school graduation191.910.586
High school graduation152.490.628
University graduation142.710.410
ReligionBuddhism172.040.5254.2470.004
Catholic52.730.596
Christian242.440.619
Atheism201.830.626
Etc41.920.739
Family typeAlone91.890.4080.9650.415
Couple only252.110.591
Live with children332.250.750
Etc32.440.694
Physical healthBad132.080.5120.2780.758
Usually332.220.705
Good242.130.680
Oral healthBad222.210.7020.6660.517
Usually392.190.652
Good91.930.596

5) Differences in perception of oral hygiene habits

In the analysis according to religion, the F-value was 3.629 (p<.05), which was consistent with the perception of the respondents.

There was a statistically significant difference, and in the analysis according to family type, the F value was 5.990 (p<.01), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents. In addition, in the classification according to their oral health status, the F value was 2.444 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (p<.05) (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5. Differences in perception of oral hygiene habits

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Oral hygiene habitsGenderMan291.790.590−0.6190.538
Woman411.880.604
Age65>62.170.6061.3000.282
65≤, <70291.890.613
70≤, <80261.690.601
80≤91.940.464
EducationLess than elementary school graduation221.660.6431.4440.238
Middle school graduation191.880.650
High school graduation151.870.442
University graduation142.070.550
ReligionBuddhism171.740.6153.6290.010
Catholic51.900.652
Christian242.170.282
Atheism201.640.678
Etc41.380.750
Family typeAlone91.220.4415.9900.001
Couple only251.980.549
Live with children331.850.571
Etc32.500.000
Physical healthBad131.670.6751.4800.235
Usually331.800.637
Good242.000.466
Oral healthBad221.910.5902.4440.095
Usually391.900.602
Good91.440.464


4. Analysis of difference in perception of quality of life

1) Differences in perception of daily life satisfaction

The F value according to educational background was 2.641 (p<.1), and the F value for physical health was 2.900 (p<.1), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (p<.05) (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1. Differences in perception of daily life satisfaction

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Daily life satisfactionGenderMan292.971.0850.4820.632
Woman412.860.693
Age65>63.000.6321.4650.232
65≤, <70293.140.789
70≤, <80262.700.930
80≤92.681.005
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.500.8022.6410.057
Middle school graduation193.060.970
High school graduation153.010.655
University graduation143.220.891
ReligionBuddhism173.120.6000.6350.639
Catholic52.800.447
Christian242.970.860
Atheism202.751.164
Etc42.530.609
Family typeAlone92.440.7261.5250.216
Couple only253.041.020
Live with children332.980.771
Etc32.370.638
Physical healthBad132.550.8822.9000.062
Usually332.820.684
Good243.211.020
Oral healthBad222.910.8120.0030.997
Usually392.900.853
Good92.891.167

2) Differences in perception of satisfaction with physical health

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to gender, the t value was 2.144 (p<.05), confirming that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents, and classification according to age, religion, family type, and type of oral health status. Showed that there was no statistically significant difference between respondents in terms of physical health satisfaction (p<.05) (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. Differences in perception of satisfaction with physical health

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Satisfaction with physical healthGenderMan293.070.7992.1440.036
Woman412.690.692
Age65>63.000.6320.4030.751
65≤, <70292.940.652
70≤, <80262.740.830
80≤92.800.978
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.500.7402.6780.054
Middle school graduation192.900.811
High school graduation153.080.594
University graduation143.080.730
ReligionBuddhism172.940.7480.5720.684
Catholic52.800.447
Christian242.970.753
Atheism202.700.865
Etc42.540.628
Family typeAlone92.330.7071.7430.167
Couple only252.920.812
Live with children332.950.706
Etc32.720.630
Physical healthBad132.400.6658.7970.000
Usually332.700.589
Good243.300.805
Oral healthBad223.010.6180.8110.449
Usually392.750.719
Good92.891.167

3) Differences in perceptions of leisure life satisfaction

In the analysis according to educational background, the F value was 5.803 (p<.01), indicating that there is a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3. Differences in recognition of leisure life satisfaction

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Leisure life satisfactionGenderMan293.041.3490.2560.799
Woman412.951.341
Age65>63.340.5140.9500.422
65≤, <70293.101.398
70≤, <80262.651.355
80≤93.341.414
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.141.2075.8030.001
Middle school graduation193.111.329
High school graduation153.471.125
University graduation143.641.150
ReligionBuddhism173.301.2630.8840.479
Catholic53.201.095
Christian243.131.484
Atheism202.551.317
Etc42.750.959
Family typeAlone92.331.1181.2900.285
Couple only253.321.492
Live with children332.911.259
Etc33.011.000
Physical healthBad132.541.3311.3960.255
Usually332.941.144
Good243.291.546
Oral healthBad222.961.4631.4090.252
Usually393.151.309
Good92.331.000

4) Differences in perception of interpersonal satisfaction

There was no statistically significant difference between respondents in interpersonal satisfaction in all classifications according to gender, age, educational background, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status (p<.05) (Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. Differences in recognition of interpersonal satisfaction

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Interpersonal satisfactionGenderMan293.610.9780.7010.486
Woman413.441.012
Age65>63.571.1341.8700.143
65≤, <70293.821.105
70≤, <80263.210.728
80≤93.381.065
EducationLess than elementary school graduation223.250.7881.3780.257
Middle school graduation193.601.143
High school graduation153.891.014
University graduation143.411.012
ReligionBuddhism173.320.8891.8220.135
Catholic53.081.154
Christian243.701.042
Atheism203.750.967
Etc42.600.490
Family typeAlone93.110.7820.7190.544
Couple only253.681.069
Live with children333.500.970
Etc33.471.361
Physical healthBad133.340.9950.6870.507
Usually333.450.970
Good243.701.042
Oral healthBad223.450.9090.6560.522
Usually393.621.077
Good93.220.833

5) Differences in perception of the meaning of life

In the analysis of differences in perception between groups according to educational background, the F value was 8.423 (p< .01), confirming that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents. In the analysis by religion, the F value was 2.597 (p<.05). showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents (Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. Differences in perception of the meaning of life

VariableItemDivisionNMeanSDF (t)p
Meaning of lifeGenderMan293.161.314−0.0060.995
Woman413.161.396
Age65>64.141.0281.9520.130
65≤, <70293.341.319
70≤, <80262.801.356
80≤92.981.416
EducationLess than elementary school graduation222.221.1888.4230.000
Middle school graduation193.151.346
High school graduation153.791.093
University graduation143.990.976
ReligionBuddhism173.461.2852.5970.044
Catholic52.801.095
Christian243.651.473
Atheism202.551.191
Etc42.450.530
Family typeAlone92.330.8661.6460.187
Couple only253.241.589
Live with children333.381.255
Etc32.610.533
Physical healthBad132.601.1893.9270.024
Usually332.961.311
Good243.731.337
Oral healthBad223.391.3752.1110.129
Usually393.221.349
Good92.331.118

Discussion

With the recent aging of the population, interest in the happiness index and quality of life of the elderly has increased, so oral health is one of the factors that have an absolute influence on a happy life in old age [11].

Old age is a period in which tooth loss rapidly progresses, and proper oral care is necessary to maintain the lifespan of teeth. Due to the weakening of the economic power of the elderly, the burden of medical expenses is high, and among them, dental medical expenses are often ignored because they are invisible from the outside [12].

This study aims to provide basic data on oral health policies and methods and procedures for oral health education by identifying the correlation between oral health status and life satisfaction of the elderly and the days of the week that affect them. The survey was conducted in the form of an interview with the people.

In the study, among 70 people, 29 (41.4%) were male and 41 (58.6%) were female. It shows the distribution, followed by middle school graduates with 19 (27.1%), the second largest share, and by family type, the largest distribution with 33 (47.1%) respondents living with their children. , followed by the respondents living alone (2 people, 35.7%) and those living alone (9 people, 12.9%). The perception of oral health behavior factors differs according to educational background. The higher the educational background, the stronger the tendency to perceive oral health in a positive way. It was confirmed that respondents whose religion is Catholic have the most positive perception about regular oral examinations.

In the classification according to oral health status, your oral health status is average. There were 39 (5.7%) of subjects who answered yes, and took up the largest proportion. Next, 22 subjects answered that their oral condition was on the bad side. People (31.4%) accounted for the second largest proportion, and only 12.9% answered that their oral health was good. According to the National Health Survey [13], the average number of teeth in the elderly over 65 years old is only 12, and more than half of the elderly complain of discomfort due to missing teeth. Tooth loss is a serious problem as it aggravates oral diseases and deteriorates general health. If teeth are left unattended for a long period of time, the mastication [14].

Loss of ability makes it easy to eat only comfortable foods, leading to nutritional imbalance. For the elderly with systemic diseases such as diabetes, tooth loss can cause problems in diet and blood sugar control, exacerbating the disease and increasing the incidence of other complications [15]. Therefore, among the effects of oral health on life in the aging population, oral health is the most fundamental for extending lifespan for the elderly, which affects physical health and further affects the quality of life of the elderly. There is an urgent need for effective management of oral diseases, and policies and methods should be sought for easy and convenient education for the elderly related to tooth brushing education, oral health education, and oral health promotion for the preventive management of oral diseases. Also, the expansion of insurance for oral health treatment is absolutely essential [16].

Hospital expenses for the elderly are a huge burden in a poor economic environment. The results of this study are expected to be helpful in improving oral health and changing various qualitative institutions that affect the quality of life and improve oral health by identifying the oral health status of the elderly and the effects of oral health on the lives of the elderly.

Conclusion

An interview with the elderly aged 65 and over in Nowon-gu to investigate the factors that influence the oral health of the elderly in an aging society on the quality of life The following results were obtained by conducting a questionnaire survey in the form of a questionnaire.

1. Out of 70 survey subjects, 29 (41.4%) were male and 41 (58.6%) were female, indicating a rather high proportion of female respondents.

2. Regarding the physical health status of the respondents, 33 respondents (47.1%) said that their physical health was average, accounting for the highest proportion.

3. In the classification according to oral health status, your oral health status is average. There were 39 subjects (5.7%) who answered yes.

4. Recognition of oral health cognitive factors showed no significant difference in classification according to gender, age, religion, family type, physical health status, and oral health status type.

Through the above study results, it was possible to understand the effects of oral health status and oral health on the lives of the elderly.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References
  1. YN Kim (2012). Factors influencing oral health-related quality of life in the elderly in Korea: Focusing on the PRECEDE model. Hanyang University graduate school doctoral thesis.
  2. JB Kim, Yujin Choi, Hyuksu Moon (1994). Public Oral Health Science. Seoul: Gomunsa.
  3. JM Kyung-, JS Hwang (2007). The effect of daily living activities on the quality of life of the elderly. A Study on Welfare of the Elderly, Vol. 36, p.221-246.
  4. MS Park (2009). Relationship between subjective oral health status and oral health lifestyle practice in old age Research. Master’s thesis, graduate school, Kwangwoon University.
  5. JY Bae (2008). The effect of oral health on the quality of life of the elderly. Yeungnam University University School doctoral thesis.
  6. SR Woo (2010). The effect of oral health status on life satisfaction of the elderly in the community Influence. Daegu Haany University graduate school master’s thesis.
  7. YY Jo (2009). The effect of oral health behavior on subjective oral health status in the elderly Hyang. Ajou University graduate school master’s thesis.
  8. JG Choi (1998). Extraoral causes of molar teeth. Journal of the Korean Dental Association, Vol. 36 No. 1, p.32-35.
  9. Atchison, K.A., & Dolan, T.A. (1990). Development of the geriatric oralhealthassessmentindex.Journal of Dentl Education, 54(11):680-687.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Abegg, C. Croucher, R., Marcenes, W. S., & Sheiam, A. (2000). How Do Routines ofDaily Actvities and Flexibility of Daily Actvities Afect Tooth‐cleanig Behavior?. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 60(3):154-158.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Atchison, K .A.,& Gift, H. C.(1997). Perceived oralhealth in a diversesampl.Advances in dental research, 11(2):272-280. Inglehart, M.R., & Bagramin, R. (Eds.). (2002). Oralhealth-related qualityoflife.QuintssencePub.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Feraro, K. F., & Schafer, M. H. (2008). Gerontlogy’s GreatstHis. The Journals of Gerontlogy Seris B: Psycholgical Sciences and Social Sciences,63(1):S3-S6.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Luxenberg, J. (1986). Geriatric Ambulatory and Institutional Care. Lancet,2,p.523-525.
  14. Locker, D., Matear, D., Stephens, M., & Jokovic, A. (2002). Oralhealth-related quality oflife ofa population ofmedicaly comprmisedelderlypeopl. Community dental health, 19(2): 90-97.
  15. Gilbert, L. (1994). Social factors and self‐assessed oralhealth in South Africa. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 22(1):47-51.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Kushnir, D., Zusman, S. P., & Robinson, P. G. (2004). Validation of a Hebrw version of the oralhealth impact profile 14. Journal of public healh dentistry, 64(2):71-75.
    Pubmed CrossRef


September 2022, 18 (3)