ABSTRACT Background Oral diseases remain disproportionately prevalent among older adults. However, evidence on oral health inequalities among older adults remains dispersed across studies that have used different socioeconomic indicators and oral health measures and has not been synthesised. Objective To synthesise the evidence on the association between socioeconomic factors and oral health among older adults aged 75 years and older. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched. Studies reporting socioeconomic factors (education, income, occupation, area‐level deprivation, and multi‐aspect socioeconomic position) and oral health (dentition status, dental caries, periodontal disease, dry mouth, oral function, oral health behaviours, and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL)) among older adults were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Sixty‐eight studies were included. Meta‐analyses showed that socioeconomic disadvantage in older adults was associated with: (1) poor dentition status: fewer natural teeth, higher prevalence of edentulism, and lacking a functional dentition; (2) more teeth with decay; (3) irregular dental attendance; and (4) poorer OHRQoL. Similar patterns were generally observed for periodontal disease, dry mouth, and oral function, although no meta‐analysis could be performed due to limited evidence and heterogeneous oral health measures. Conclusion Socioeconomic disadvantage was consistently associated with poor oral health in older adults. Associations were more pronounced for dentition status, reflecting the cumulative socioeconomic disadvantage over the life course. Socioeconomic factors should be considered to inform prevention, clinical decision‐making and oral healthcare planning for the ageing population. Trial Registration PROSPERO Registration CRD420251160573
Syed et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: