1http://dx.doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v18i0.8655466 Volume 18 2019 e191431 Original Article 1 Faculty of Dentistry. State University of Paraiba, Campina Grande – PB, Brazil 2 Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pernambuco - UFPE, Recife - PE, Brazil; 3 Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMG, Belo Horizonte - MG, Brazil. Corresponding author: Renata Cimões Federal University of Pernambuco - UFPE, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, 1235 - Cidade Universitária, 50670-901, Recife-PE, Brazil email: renata.cimoes@globo.com Received: October 22, 2018 Accepted: May 06, 2019 Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus Raulison Vieira de Sousa¹, Roberto Carlos Mourão Pinho2, Bruna de Carvalho Farias Vajgel2, Saul Martins Paiva3, Renata Cimões2,* Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of oral problems on the quality of life of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). Methods: A population-based, cross-sectional study was conducted with a random sample of 302 individuals with DM2 who answered the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire as well as a questionnaire addressing socioeconomic and oral health characteristics. After filling out the questionnaires, the participants were submitted to a clinical dental examination Periodontal diseases, dental caries and edentulism. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and logistic regression. Results: The prevalence of impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was 47%. In the multivariate analysis, the variables that remained significantly associated with a negative impact on quality of life were xerostomia (OR= 2.15; 95% CI: 1.07-4.30), denture need (OR= 3.71; 95% CI: 1.17-11.73) and periodontitis (OR= 5.02; 95% CI: 2.19-11.52). Conclusion: The prevalence rate of impact on OHRQoL was high in the sample studied. Xerostomia, denture need and periodontitis posed a risk of negative impact on the quality of life of individuals with DM2, independently of socioeconomic status. Keywords: Oral health. Quality of life. Diabetes Mellitus. 2 de Sousa et al. Introduction Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is a metabolic disorder characterized by high levels of glucose in the blood due to defects in the action and secretion of insulin1. DM2 is the most common form of diabetes, accounting for 90 to 95% of all cases and generally occurs in obese adults over 40 years of age. However, there has been an increase in cases diagnosed in younger people due to the association between DM2 and obesity, the incidence of which is also high among younger people2. From the epidemiological standpoint, diabetes is considered a public health problem in both developed and developing countries2. The number of individuals with diabetes was 171 million throughout the world in 2000 and is expected to reach 366 million by 20303. In Brazil, the most recent study published on this issue reports approximately 10.3 million individuals with diabetes4. DM2 is associated with systemic complications, such as microvascular diseases (ret- inopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) as well as cerebrovascular and cardiovascu- lar diseases5. DM2 accounts for 5.2% of deaths in Brazil and is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which accounts for 31.3% of deaths in the country6. Among the oral problems found in patients with DM2, high prevalence rates of periodontitis, dental caries, edentulism and xerostomia have been described5,7-11. There are no characteristic phenotypic features that are unique to periodontitis in patients with diabetes mellitus. On this basis diabetes-associated periodontitis is not a distinct disease. Nevertheless, diabetes is an important modifying factor of periodontitis, and should be included in a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis as a descriptor. According to the new classification of periodontitis, the level of glyce- mic control in diabetes influences the grading of periodontitis12. Studies reveal that individuals with DM2 are at greater risk for the development of periodontal disease due to the diminished defense mechanisms against the action of biofilm (bacterial plaque)9,11,13. Although not pathognomonic of DM2, these oral problems are highly prevalent in this population and can exert a negative influence on quality of life due to the functional, psychological and social impacts8,14. The few studies have evaluated the impact of oral problems on the quality of life of individuals with diabetes have methodological limitations, such as the absence of a population-based sample, the studies in the review vary in quality and have sev- eral common methodological limitations. These include: lack of reported response rates, varying questionnaires used to measure study outcomes; limited validated questionnaires and inadequate discussion of confounding factors that may have affected the findings (age, education, income level). Studies included were from both high and low income countries and therefore it is not known whether the dif- ferent health care systems and cultural beliefs across these countries could have affected the knowledge, attitudes and practices of people with diabetes in relation to oral health care. Self-reported data from the studies also limit the generalization of the findings. The systematic review undertaken also has limitations. There is also the possibility of outcome reporting bias15. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of oral problems on the quality of life of individuals 3 de Sousa et al. with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a population-based study conducted in northeast- ern Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS Characterization of sample A population-based sample was conducted involving a randomly selected sample by simple lottery of 302 male and female individuals with DM2 (mean age: 63.1 years) registered with primary care units of the Family Health Program in the municipality of Pombal, state of Paraíba, Brazil. The participants were selected from a total popula- tion of 778 individuals with DM2 according to data furnished by the municipal secre- tary of health. The municipality of Pombal is located in northeastern Brazil and has an estimated population of 32,766 inhabitants as well as a Human Development Index of 0.63416. The sample size was calculated using a proportion estimate for a finite population and considering a 5% margin of error, 95% confidence interval and 50% prevalence rate of the oral problems investigated. The minimum sample was determined to be 258 individuals, to which 20% was added to compensate for possible dropouts. Thus, the sample was composed of 310 individuals. Ethical aspects This study received approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Uni- versidade Federal de Pernambuco (certificate number: 47981015.8.0000.5208) and was conducted in compliance with the precepts stipulated in Resolution nº 466 of December 12, 2012 of the Brazilian National Board of Health. All participants received clarifications regarding the objectives and procedures of the study and agreed to par- ticipate by signing a statement of informed consent. Eligibility criteria The inclusion criteria were registration with a primary care unit of the Family Health Program in the municipality of Pombal, diagnosis of DM2 at least one year earlier based on the criteria recommended by the Brazilian Society of Diabetes (fasting blood glucose ≥ 126 or glycated hemoglobin > 6.5%),2 age 18 years or older and signed statement of informed consent. The exclusion criteria were neuropsycho- motor disorder, pregnancy and systemic complications of DM2 that could lead to an underestimation of the impact of oral problems on quality of life, such as ampu- tations and blindness. Training and calibration exercises The training and calibration exercises were conducted by a researcher with ample experience in the use of the epidemiological indices employed in this study. The first step consisted of theoretical explanations of the indices and the data collec- tion routine. In the practical phase, the experienced researcher and the examiner being trained performed clinical examinations of 30 patients using the indices employed in the study. The level of agreement between the examiner and experi- 4 de Sousa et al. enced researcher regarding the diagnoses was determined. The 30 patients were examined again after a seven-day interval for the determination of intra-examiner agreement. Cohen’s Kappa statistic was used for this purpose, which furnished the following minimum coefficients for the variables collected: inter-examiner K = 0.85 and intra-examiner K = 0.8717. Pilot study A pilot study was conducted with 30 individuals prior to the main study to test the methods as well as the use of the questionnaire and clinical charts. The sample in the pilot study was composed of individuals with DM2 from the same municipality. These individuals were not included in the main study. Data collection Non-clinical data The participants answered a questionnaire administered in interview form address- ing socioeconomic characteristics and aspects related to oral health, such as oral hygiene frequency and visits to a dentist. The Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was used for the assessment of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL)18. This scale has 14 items distributed among seven domains (functional limitation, pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and hand- icap). Each item has five response options on a rating scale: never = 0; rarely = 1; sometimes = 2; often = 3; and very often = 4. As recommended by the authors of the questionnaire, impact on OHRQoL was considered when at least one item was scored ≥ 2 (response options “sometimes”, “often” and “very often”) and the absence of impact was considered when all items were scored ≤ 1 (response options “never” and “rarely”). Clinical data After filling out the questionnaires, the participants were submitted to a clinical den- tal examination by the dentist who had undergone the training and calibration exer- cises. The clinical examinations were conducted at the dental offices of the primary care units in the municipality of Pombal. The examiner used individual protective equipment (white coat, mask, gloves and protective eyewear). All instruments and materials used during the examination, such as a mouth mirror (PRISMA, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), University of North Carolina periodontal probe (PCPUNC 15® Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA), ball point probe (GOLGRAN, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and dental gauze, were sterilized and packed into individual kits for each patient. After the examination, individuals with oral problems were sent for treatment. The conditions investigated during the examination were periodontitis, dental caries, xerostomia and edentulism. For the analysis of peridontitis, all teeth were examined, except third molars and teeth indicated for extraction. Each tooth was probed at six sites (mesio-vestibular, mid-vestibular, disto-vestibular, disto-lingual, mid-lingual and mesio-lingual). Peri- 5 de Sousa et al. odontitis was diagnosed based on gingival recession, probing depth, clinical attach- ment loss, bleeding on probing and tooth mobility, Regarding Dental Mobility, the following classification was used: Grade 1 (mobility of the tooth crown 0.2 - 1.0mm horizontally); Grade 2 (mobility of the dental crown exceeding 1.0mm horizon- tally); and Grade 3 (mobility of the tooth crown in the vertical and horizontal direc- tions)12,19,20. The criteria established by the American Academy of Periodontology21 were used for the classification of severity based on the occurrence of at least one site with the following combinations of periodontal findings (Table 1). Also using the criteria of the American Academy of Periodontology21, the extent of periodontitis was classified as localized (≤ 30% of teeth affected) or generalized (> 30% of teeth affected). Dental caries was assessed using the Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index recommended by the World Health Organization22. Edentulism was classified based on the number of missing teeth (edentulous arch, short arch or complete arch) as well as the location of the missing teeth (anterior loss, posterior loss or anterior and posterior loss)23. Denture need was evaluated using an adaptation of the criteria used in the 2010 Brazil Smiling program24 :absence of need (all teeth present, some missing teeth with dentures in adequate condition for use and com- plete edentulism with dentures in adequate condition for use) and presence of need (missing teeth with no dentures, complete edentulism with no dentures or dentures present but inadequate for use). Xerostomia was evaluated based on the study conducted by Busato et al. (2012). The following question was posed: “Have you had a sensation of dry mouth every day for the last six months?” Xerostomia was considered present when the respondent answered “yes”25. Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were performed for the characterization of the sample with regard to socioeconomic, oral health and clinical data as well as the OHIP-14 items. In the bivariate analyses, the chi-square test and likelihood ratio test were used to deter- mine associations between the independent variables and negative impact on quality of life (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was then performed using the forward stepwise procedure, in which each variable with a p-value < 0.20 in bivar- iage analysis was incorporated into the model one by one. The data were entered an Excel spreadsheet and subsequently analyzed using the SPSS for Windows, version 20.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Table 1. Classification of severity based on the occurrence of at least one site with the following combinations of periodontal findings MILD MODERATE SEVERE Probing depth > 3 and < 5 mm ≥ 5 and < 7 mm ≥ 7 mm Bleeding on probing Present Present Present Clinical attachment loss 1-2 mm 3-4 mm ≥ 5 mm 6 de Sousa et al. RESULTS Three hundred two individuals with DM2 participated in the present study, corre- sponding to 97.4% of the total number of individuals selected based on the sample calculation. The eight dropouts (2.6%) were individuals who declined to participate during the data collection. However, the final number of participants was higher than the minimum number determined during the calculation of the sample size. The analysis of the distribution of the sample according to the socio-demographic data revealed that the female sex accounted for 71.2% of the sample. Mean age was 63.1 years and 58.9% of the participants were between 51 and 70 years of age. The major- ity was married (58.9%). Monthly household income ranged from R$ 80 to R$ 10.000 and 60.3% earned up to the Brazilian monthly minimum wage. A total of 77.8% of the participants had an incomplete primary school education, 50.3% reported being retired and 22.5% reported having paid employment. Moreover, 48.7% reported going to the dentist due to pain and 37.4% reported brushing their teeth three times a day. With regard to the clinical diagnoses, 49.3% of the individuals examined had a short arch, 47.7% had an edentulous arch; 85.4% had anterior and posterior tooth loss and 72.2% had denture needs. The prevalence of xerostomia was 52.6% and 29.5% had at least one tooth with caries experience. Bleeding on probing occurred in 47.7% of the patients and periodontitis was diagnosed in 38.4%, among whom 49.1% had severe periodontitis, 25% had moderate periodontitis and 25.9% had mild periodontitis. With regard to extent, 68.1% of these individuals with had gen- eralized periodontitis and 31.9% had localized periodonditis. Tooth mobility was diagnosed in 30.2% of the sample, 37.1% of whom had Grade 1, 31.4% had Grade 2 and 31.4% had Grade 3 (Table 2). The prevalence of impact on OHRQoL in the sample was 47%. The OHIP-14 items with the greatest frequency of impact were Items 3 (“have you had painful aching in your mouth?”) and 4 (“have you found it uncomfortable to eat any foods because of your teeth, mouth or dentures?”), with rates of 53% and 57.9%, respectively (Table 3). These items belong to the pain domain, which was the most prevalent (74.5%), followed by the physical disability (56.3%) and psychological discomfort (51.0%) domains (Table 4). In the bivariate analysis, the independent variables significantly associated with the impact on OHRQoL were edentulism (p < 0.001), denture need (p = 0.002), bleeding on probing (p = 0.007), periodontitis (p = 0.000) and degree of mobility (p = 0.017) (Table 5). In the multivariate analysis, xerostomia (OR = 2.15; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.30), denture need (OR = 3.71; 95% CI: 1.17 to 11.73) and periodontitis (OR = 5.02; 95% CI: 2.19 to 11.52) remained significantly associated with a negative impact on OHRQoL (Table 6). In the analysis per OHIP-14 domain, xerostomia was significantly associated with all domains (p < 0.05), except physical disability (p = 0.082) and social disability (p = 0.132). Denture need was significantly associated with the pain, psychological discomfort and physical disability domains. Periodontitis was associated with all domains (p < 0.05) except social disability (p = 0.062). 7 de Sousa et al. Table 2. Distribution of the sample according to clinical diagnosis data Variable n % Edentulism Full arch 9 3,0 Short arch 149 49,3 Toothless arch 144 47,7 Location of dental loss Loss only anterior 1 0,3 Loss only posterior 34 11,3 Loss anterior and posterior 258 85,4 No Information ( Full arch) 9 3,0 Denture Need No 84 27,8 Yes 218 72,2 Xerostomia No 143 47,4 Yes 159 52,6 Number of carious teeth (NC) NC=0 69 22,8 NC>0 89 29,5 No information (Tothless Arch) 144 47,7 Bleeding after Probing Absent 14 4,6 Present 144 47,7 No information (Tothless Arch) 144 47,7 Periodontitis Ausent 42 13,9 Present 116 38,4 No information (Tothless Arch) 144 47,7 Severity of Periodontitis Light 30 25,9 Moderate 29 25,0 Severe 57 49,1 Total 116 100,0 Periodontitis extension Localized 37 31,9 Generalized 79 68,1 Total 116 100,0 Dental mobility No 81 69,8 Continue 8 de Sousa et al. Continuation Yes 35 30,2 Total 116 100,0 Grade of dental Mobility Grade 1 13 37,1 Grade 2 11 31,4 Grade 3 11 31,4 Total 35 100,0 Total 302 100,0 Table 3. Prevalence of impact of oral alterations on OHIP-14 quality of life among subjects with DM2 OHIP (Questions) Whithout Impact (Never; Rarely) With Impact (sometimes, Repeatedly, always) Total n % n % n % Q01 - Speech 240 79,5 62 20,5 302 100,0 Q02 - Palate 199 65,9 103 34,1 302 100,0 Q03 - Pain 142 47 160 53 302 100,0 Q04 - Chewing 127 42,1 175 57,9 302 100,0 Q05 - Worried 169 56 133 44 302 100,0 Q06 - Tense 216 71,5 86 28,5 302 100,0 Q07 - Alimentation 155 51,3 147 48,7 302 100,0 Q08 - Meal 172 56,9 130 43,1 302 100,0 Q09 - Relax 223 73,9 79 26,1 302 100,0 Q10 - Shame 194 64,2 108 35,8 302 100,0 Q11 - Irritation 251 83,1 51 16,9 302 100,0 Q12 – Daily activities 238 78,8 64 21,2 302 100,0 Q13 - Life 220 72,9 82 27,1 302 100,0 Q14 - Work 239 79,2 63 20,8 302 100,0 Table 4. Prevalence of impact of oral changes in quality of life per OHIP-14 domain among individuals with DM2 OHIP (Dimension) Without Impact With impact Total N % n % n % Functional Limitation 176 58,3 126 41,7 302 100,0 Pain 77 25,5 225 74,5 302 100,0 Psychological Discomfort 148 49,0 154 51,0 302 100,0 Physical Inability 132 43,7 170 56,3 302 100,0 Psychological Inability 162 53,6 140 46,4 302 100,0 Social Inability 209 69,2 93 30,8 302 100,0 Disability 190 62,9 112 37,1 302 100,0 9 de Sousa et al. Table 5. Impact on quality of life (QoL) according to the variables independentes Variable Impact QoL Total Valor p OR (IC 95%) without Impact with Impacto n % N % n % Sex Male 44 27,5 43 30,3 87 28,8 0,5941 0,87 (0,53-1,44) Female 116 72,5 99 69,7 215 71,2 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Age Up to 50 years 21 13,1 23 16,2 44 14,6 0,1331 - (- - -) From 51 to 70 years 89 55,6 89 62,7 178 58,9 Over to 70 years 50 31,3 30 21,1 80 26,5 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Civil status Single 18 11,3 15 10,6 33 10,9 0,4791 - (- - -) Married 90 56,3 88 62,0 178 58,9 Divorced 7 4,4 9 6,3 16 5,3 Widower 45 28,1 30 21,1 75 24,8 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Income Up to R$937,00 95 59,4 87 61,3 182 60,3 0,6642 - (- - -) From R$937,00 to R$2811,00 56 35,0 51 35,9 107 35,4 from R$2811,00 to R$4685,00 6 3,8 3 2,1 9 3,0 Over R$4685,00 to R$ 14055,005 3 1,9 1 0,7 4 1,3 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Scholarity Up to Grade 1 incomplete 129 80,6 106 74,6 235 77,8 0,3891 - (- - -) 1st to 2nd grade 15 9,4 21 14,8 36 11,9 2nd grade until Univers incomplete 12 7,5 9 6,3 21 7,0 Univ comp to Postgrad / Graduate 4 2,5 6 4,2 10 3,3 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Work Activity work 32 20,0 36 25,4 68 22,5 0,0921 - (- - -) Housewife 38 23,8 44 31,0 82 27,2 Retired 90 56,3 62 43,7 152 50,3 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Visit to the Dentist Never 16 10,0 9 6,3 25 8,3 0,1601 - (- - -) Because of the pain 75 46,9 72 50,7 147 48,7 Once a year 48 30,0 31 21,8 79 26,2 Twice a year 13 8,1 16 11,3 29 9,6 More than twice a year 8 5,0 14 9,9 22 7,3 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Continue 10 de Sousa et al. Continuation Brush the teeth Less than once a day 5 3,1 5 3,5 10 3,3 0,9491 - (- - -) Once a day 23 14,4 22 15,5 45 14,9 Twice a day 57 35,6 52 36,6 109 36,1 Three times a day 63 39,4 50 35,2 113 37,4 More than three times a day 12 7,5 13 9,2 25 8,3 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Edentulism Full arch 9 5,6 - - 9 3,0 <0,0012 - (- - -) Short arch 67 41,9 82 57,7 149 49,3 Toothless Arch 84 52,5 60 42,3 144 47,7 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Location of dental losses Loss anterior - - 1 0,7 1 0,3 0,3272 - (- - -) Loss posterior 20 13,2 14 9,9 34 11,6 Loss anterior e posterior 131 86,8 127 89,4 258 88,1 Total 151 100,0 142 100,0 293 100,0 Denture need No 57 35,6 27 19,0 84 27,8 0,0021 2,36 (1,39-4) Yes 103 64,4 115 81,0 218 72,2 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Xerostomia No 84 52,5 59 41,5 143 47,4 0,0741 1,55 (0,99-2,45) Yes 76 47,5 83 58,5 159 52,6 Total 160 100,0 142 100,0 302 100,0 Number of carious teeth (NC) NC=0 37 48,7 32 39,0 69 43,7 0,2881 1,48 (0,79-2,79) NC>0 39 51,3 50 61,0 89 56,3 Total 76 100,0 82 100,0 158 100,0 Bleeding after Probing No 12 16,0 2 2,4 14 8,9 0,0073 7,62 (1,64- 35,29) Yes 63 84,0 80 97,6 143 91,1 Total 75 100,0 82 100,0 157 100,0 Periodontitis No 32 42,1 10 12,2 42 26,6 0,0001 5,24 (2,35- 11,69) Yes 44 57,9 72 87,8 116 73,4 Total 76 100,0 82 100,0 158 100,0 Severity Periodontitis Light 13 29,5 17 23,6 30 25,9 0,1941 - (- - -) Moderate 14 31,8 15 20,8 29 25,0 Severe 17 38,6 40 55,6 57 49,1 Total 44 100,0 72 100,0 116 100,0 Periodontitis extension Localized 18 40,9 19 26,4 37 31,9 0,1551 1,93 (0,87-4,29) Generalized 26 59,1 53 73,6 79 68,1 Total 44 100,0 72 100,0 116 100,0 Dental Mobility No 35 79,5 46 63,9 81 69,8 0,1151 2,2 (0,92-5,28) Yes 9 20,5 26 36,1 35 30,2 Total 44 100,0 72 100,0 116 100,0 Continue 11 de Sousa et al. DISCUSSION Studies on OHRQoL are more complete that those restricted to measuring clinical data due to the ability to express the extent of the negative impact of oral problems on the lives of populations and therefore constitute an important collective health tool that can contribute to the planning of public health policies26-28. Studies have evaluated quality of life in patients with DM2, but few have investigated OHRQoL in this population27-29. In the present study, oral problems exerted a negative impact on quality of life among nearly half of the population with DM2. A similar result is reported in a study con- ducted in the United States, in which the prevalence of impact on OHRQoL was 47.7%28. Other studies, however, report lower prevalence rates ranging from 22.5 to 34.4%10,25,29. Such divergences may be explained by cultural differences among the populations surveyed as well as differences in the methods employed in the studies. A strong point of the present investigation is the fact that it was the population-based study with a randomized, representative sample. The OHIP-14 items related to pain were the most prevalent. The population studied reported greater impact on Items 3 (“have you had painful aching in your mouth?”) and 4 (“have you found it uncomfortable to eat any foods because of problems with your teeth, mouth or dentures?”), with rates of 53% and 57.9%, respectively. These findings are similar to those reported in studies conducted in Iran14, the United Kingdom30 and Brazil31, suggesting that oral problems with the potential to cause physical pain and discomfort have the greatest negative impact on quality of life. Continuation Grade of Dental Mobility Grade 1 5 55,6 8 30,8 13 37,1 0,0172 - (- - -) Grade 2 4 44,4 7 26,9 11 31,4 Grade 3 - - 11 42,3 11 31,4 Total 9 100,0 26 100,0 35 100,0 1- Pearson’s Chi-square test; 2 Likelihood ratio test; 3 Chi-square with continuity correction; R$ Real. Table 6. Multivariate analysis of the association between independent variables and impact on OHRQoL Variable Coef. E.P. χ2 Valor p OR1 IC 95%  Minimum Maximum Denture need 1,31 0,59 4,98 0,026 3,71 1,17 11,73 Xerostomia 0,76 0,35 4,63 0,031 2,15 1,07 4,30 Periodontitis 1,61 0,42 14,53 0,000 5,02 2,19 11,52 Constante -2,70 0,70 14,72 0,000 0,07 Hosmer-Lemeshow test p-valor   Test Omnibus p-valor R2 of Nagelkerke 2,91 0,573   27,912 0,000 0,216 Legend: : c2 - chi-square; 1-OR-odds ratio; CI - confidence interval; Coef- coefficient of the variable; E.P- standard error; R2 - coefficient of determination 12 de Sousa et al. The socio-demographic data were not significantly associated with OHRQoL. This finding is in agreement with data described in a study conducted in Iran14, but is in disagreement with findings described in other studies8,26,32. In the present investiga- tion, the sample was quite homogeneous with regard to socio-demographic vari- ables, especially sex, income and schooling, which may have influenced the results, as reported in study of Mohamed et al ( 2013)10, where educational level was originally measured as (0 = illiterate, 1 = literate, 2 = primary school, 3 = middle school, 4 = high school, 5 = college, 6 = post-graduation studies) and was recoded into illiterate = 1 (including the original category 0) and literate = 2 (including the categories 1–6). Employment status was measured as (0 = unemployed, 1 = student, 2 = housewife, 3 = retired, 4 = employed), then recoded into unemployed = 1 (including the original categories 0–3) and employed = 2 (including the original category 4). The literature reports that individuals with inadequate oral hygiene habits and infre- quent visits to a dentist have a greater chance of having an unfavorable oral health status, which can exert a negative impact on quality of life26,33. Such findings suggest that the effects of self-care and dental treatment can improve OHRQoL. However, this association was not found in the present study, which may be explained by the profile of the sample. The fact that nearly half of the sample was composed of com- pletely endentulous individuals may have led to an underestimation of the role of oral problems, such as dental caries and periodontal disease, which are dependent on the control of biofilm and are therefore related to hygiene habits. There is a consensus in the literature regarding the role of dental caries as a factor associated with a negative impact on quality of life in different populations, including individuals with DM214,34. Caries is an oral problem that can cause pain and, in some situations, have a negative impact on esthetics, with functional, psychological and social repercussions35. In the present study, however, no such association was found in the individuals with DM2. One should bear in mind that the sample was composed mainly of older adults and other oral problems, such as periodontal disease, are more prevalent than dental caries in this age group35 and therefore have a greater impact on quality of life. Xerostomia is of the most prevalent oral manifestations in diabetic patients and exerts a negative impact on quality of life due to the fact that it affects speaking, the use of dentures and food intake14,23,36,37. This condition was highly prevalent in the pres- ent investigation, which is similar to data described in a study conducted in Sweden involving adults with DM28. However, a difference observed between the two studies regarding the impact on quality of life. Unlike the study conducted in Sweden, xerosto- mia was associated with a negative impact on quality of life in nearly all the domains of the OHIP-14 in the present investigation. In a Brazilian study involving patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the authors also report the impact of xerostomia on quality of life, demonstrating the importance of the prevention and treatment of this condi- tion for improving the quality of life of diabetic patients17. It should be pointed out that xerostomia is a condition that may or may not be associated with hyposalivation. The evaluation of xerostomia is limited to self-reported information and is considered to be an important aspect of OHRQoL in patients with DM217. However, further studies 13 de Sousa et al. should be conducted involving the analysis of saliva flow to determine the impact of hyposalivation of OHRQoL in this population. A strong association was found between periodontitis and the negative impact on quality of life, which is in agreement with data described in previous studies10,14,38. The multivariate analysis revealed that individuals with DM2 and a diagnosis of peri- odontitis had a fivefold greater risk of a negative impact on quality of life. Moreover, all domains of the OHIP-14, except social disability, were significantly associated with periodontitis. These findings confirm the fact that periodontitis is the most important oral complication of diabetes due not only to its high prevalence, but also its impact on quality of life, underscoring the need for specific strategies aimed at minimizing the negative effects of periodontal disease on the quality of life of indi- viduals with DM2. In many cases, tooth loss is a consequence of periodontal disease. Edentulism has functional and esthetic repercussions that compromise quality of life8. Differently from the findings of previous studies8,10,39, however, no significant association was found between edentulism and quality of life in the present investigation when con- sidering either the number or location of missing teeth. The divergence in comparison to other studies may reflect differences in the meaning attributed to tooth loss in different social and cultural contexts. For some populations, tooth loss is understood as a natural circumstance of the ageing process40, which may make this condition not have a negative impact on quality of life. As reported in other studies41,42, individuals with denture needs in the present investi- gation had a greater chance of experiencing a negative impact on quality of life. In the analysis per domain, denture need was associated with the domains related to pain, psychological discomfort and physical disability. The absence of the impact of tooth loss and the associations between denture need and the domains cited reveal that tooth loss is not important to the population studied provided that prosthetic rehabil- itation is adequate. Moreover, this finding supports the inference that the experience of pain, stress and functional loss stemming from edentulism prevails over the impact on esthetics and its psychological and social repercussions. The present study has limitations that should be addressed. The cross-sectional design places limits on causal inferences between the independent variables and the occurrence of impact on quality of life. Therefore, longitudinal studies should be performed to confirm the inferences revealed in the present investigation. Moreover, there is the possibility of memory bias with regard to questions related to the past. However, the present investigation was a population-based study randomized, and the results can be extrapolated to the population, making the findings useful for the definition of priorities that need to be considered in the planning of public health poli- cies directed at the population with DM2. The predictive factors of a negative impact on OHRQoL differ among different populations and therefore the needs of each pop- ulation should be analyzed in an individualized manner. Oral healthcare policies for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus should encompass specific strategies based on studies addressing OHRQoL 14 de Sousa et al. In conclusion, for patients with this systemic condition, the present findings reveal that xerostomia, denture need and periodontitis constitute risks for the negative impact oral health-related quality of life, independently of socioeconomic status. REFERENCES 1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2013 Jan;36 Suppl 1:S67-74. doi: 10.2337/dc13-S067. 2. Brazilian Society of Diabetes (SBD). [Guidelines of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (2015-2016)]. São Paulo: A.C. Farmacêutica; 2016 [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.diabetes.org.br/ profissionais/images/docs/DIRETRIZES-SBD-2015-2016.pdf. Portuguese. 3. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes. Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004 May;27(5):1047-53. 4. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Secretariat of Health. [VigitelBrasil 2010: surveillance of risk factors and protection for chronic diseases by telephone inquiry]. Brasília: Ministry of Health of Brazil; 2011. Portuguese. 5. Brazilian Society of Diabetes (SBD). [Guidelines of the Brazilian Diabetes Society 2017-2018)]. São Paulo: Clannad; 2017 [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.diabetes.org.br/profissionais/ images/2017/diretrizes/diretrizes-sbd-2017-2018.pdf. Portuguese. 6. Scmidt MI, Duncan BB, Silva GA, Menezes AM, Monteiro CA, Barreto SM, et al. Chronic non-communicable diseases in Brazil: burden and current challenges. Lancet. 2011 Jun 4;377(9781):1949-61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60135-9. 7. Sandberg GE1, Sundberg HE, Fjellstrom CA, Wikblad KF. Type 2 diabetes and oral health: a comparison between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000 Sep;50(1):27-34. 8. Sandberg GE, Wikblad KF. Oral health and healthrelated quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients and non-diabetic controls. Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 Jun;61(3):141-8. 9. Patel MH, Kumar JV, Moss ME. Diabetes and tooth loss: an analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 May;144(5):478-85. 10. Mohamed HG, Idris SB, Ahmed MF, Bøe OE, Mustafa K, Ibrahim SO, et al. Association between oral health status and type 2 diabetes mellitus among Sudanese adults: a matched case-control study. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e82158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082158. 11. Taylor GW, Borgnakke WS. Periodontal disease: Associations with diabetes, glycemic control and complications. Oral Dis. 2008 Apr;14(3):191-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2008.01442.x. 12. Jepsen S, Ercoli C, Caton JG, Fan J, Sanctis M De, Matthews D, et al. Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions : Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S237-S248. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0733. 13. Lamster IB, Lalla E, Borgnakke WS, Taylor GW. The relationship between oral health and diabetes mellitus. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Oct;139 Suppl:19S-24S. 14. Nikbin A, Bayani M, Jenabian N, Khafri S, Motallebnejad M. Oral health-related quality of life in diabetic patients: comparison of the Persian version of Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index and Oral Health Impact Profile: a descriptive-analytic study. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2014 Feb 4;13(1):32. doi: 10.1186/2251-6581-13-32. 15 de Sousa et al. 15. Poudel P, Griffiths R, Wong VW, Arora A, Flack JR, Khoo CL, et al. Oral health knowledge, attitudes and care practices of people with diabetes: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018 May 2;18(1):577. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5485-7. 16. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. [Census results 2010] [cited 2019 Jan 11]. Available from: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pb/pombal/panorama. Portuguese. 17. Peres MA, Traebert J, Marcenes W. [Calibration of examiners for dental caries epidemiology studies]. Cad Saude Publica. 2001 Jan-Feb;17(1):153-9. doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2001000100016. Portuguese. 18. Oliveira BH, Nadanovsky P. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile - short form. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;33(4):307-14. 19. Franca MSM, Gomes RCB, Lins RDAU, Santos PAV, Lima FJ. [The influence of smoking on periodontal status]. Stomatos. 2010 Jun-Dec;16(31):23-36. Portuguese. 20. Hamp SE, Nyman S, Lindhe. Treatment of multirooted teeth. Results after 5 years. J Clin Periodontol. 1975 Aug;2(3):126-35. 21. American Academy of Periodontology Task Force Report on the Update to the 1999. Classification of Periodontal Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2015 Jul;86(7):835-8. doi: 10.1902/jop.2015.157001. 22. World Health Organization. Oral health surveys: basic methods. 5 ed. Genebra: World Health Organization; 2013. 23. Mendonça BM, Cimões R, Araújo AC, Caldas Junior AF, Silva PV. [Impact of the existing tooth number on daily performance: pilot study]. Cien Saude Colet. 2010; 15(3):775-84. doi: 10.1590/S1413-81232010000300020. Portuguese. 24. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Secretariat of Health Care. Secretariat of Health Surveillance. SB Brazil Project 2010: National Oral Health Survey: main results. Brasilia: Ministry of Health of Brazil; 2012 [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/pesquisa_nacional_ saude_bucal.pdf. 25. Busato IM, Ignácio SA, Brancher JA, Moysés ST, Azevedo-Alanis LR. Impact of clinical status and salivary conditions on xerostomia and oral health-related. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;40(1):62-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00635.x. 26. Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Quality of life and its importance in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2001 Jun;28(2):152-8. 27. Sadeghi R, Taleghani F, Farhadi S. Oral health related quality of life in diabetic patients. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2014 Fall;8(4):230-4. doi: 10.5681/joddd.2014.41. 28. Huang DL, Chan KC, Young BA. Poor oral health and quality of life in older U.S. adults with diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Oct;61(10):1782-8. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12452 29. Allen EM, Ziada HM, O’Halloran D, Clerehugh V, Allen PF. Attitudes, awareness and oral health-related quality of life in patients with diabetes. J Oral Rehabil. 2008 Mar;35(3):218-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01760.x. 30. Irani FC, Wassall RR, Preshaw PM. Impact of periodontal status on oral health-related quality of life in patients with and without type 2 diabetes. J Dent. 2015 May;43(5):506-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.001 31. Drumond-Santana T, Costa FO, Zenóbio EG, Soares RV, Santana TD. [Impact of periodontal disease on quality of life for dentate diabetics]. Cad Saude Publica. 2007 Mar;23(3):637-44. Portuguese. 32. Ahola AJ, Saraheimo M, Forsblom C, Hietala K, Sintonen H, Groop PH, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes-association with diabetic complications (the Finn Diane Study). Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Jun;25(6):1903-8. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfp709. 16 de Sousa et al. 33. Niesten D, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NHJ. Oral health care behavior and frailty-related factors in a care-dependent older population. J Dent. 2017 Jun;61:39-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.002. 34. Ahmad MS, Bhayat A, Zafar MS, Al-Samadani KH. The Impact of Hyposalivation on Quality of Life (QoL) and Oral Health in the Aging Population of Al Madinah Al Munawarrah. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 20;14(4). pii: E445. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14040445. 35. Ragghianti MS, Greghi SL, Lauris JR, Sant’ana AC, Passanezi E. Influence of age, sex, plaque and smoking on periodontal conditions in a population from Bauru, Brazil. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004 Dec;12(4):273-9. 36. Arrieta-Blanco JJ, Bartolomé-Villar B, Jiménez-Martinez E, Saavedra-Vallejo P, Arrieta-Blanco FJ. Buccodental problems in patients with diabetes mellitus (I): index of plaque and dental caries. Med Oral. 2003 Mar-Apr;8(2):97-109. 37. Carda C, Mosquera-Lloreda N, Salom L, De Ferraris MEG, Peydró A. Structural and functional salivary disorders in type 2 diabetic patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006 Jul 1;11(4):E309-14. 38. Lopes MWF, Gusmão ES, Alves RV, Cimões R. The Impact of Chronic Periodontitis on Quality of Life in Brazilian Subjects. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2009 Jan;43(2):89-98. 39. Silva MES, Villaça EL, Magalhães ES, Ferreira EF. [Impact of tooth loss in quality of life]. Cien Saude Colet. 2010;15(3):841-50. doi: 10.1590/S1413-81232010000300027. Portuguese. 40. Ferreira AAA, Piuvezam G, Werner CWA, Alves MSCF. [The toothache and toothloss: social representation of oral care]. Cien Saude Colet. 2006;11(1):211-8. doi: 10.1590/S1413-81232006000100030. Portuguese. 41. Araújo AC, Gusmão ES, Batista JE, Cimões R. Impact of periodontal disease on quality of life. Quintessence Int. 2010 Jun;41(6):e111-8. 42. Jones JA, Orner MB, Spiro A, Kressin NR. Tooth loss and dentures: patient’s perspectives. Int Dent J. 2003;53(5 Suppl):327-34.