| Literature DB >> 19930601 |
Karen G Peres1, Marco A Peres, Cora L P Araujo, Ana M B Menezes, Pedro C Hallal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Harmful social conditions in early life might predispose individuals to dental status which in turn may impact on adolescents' quality of life. AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of oral health impacts among 12 yr-old Brazilian adolescents (n = 359) and its association with life course socioeconomic variables, dental status and dental services utilization in a population-based birth cohort in Southern Brazil.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19930601 PMCID: PMC2785763 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-95
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Figure 1Conceptual framework of the relationship between life course socioeconomic, demographic and dental status and Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP).
Sample distribution of sociodemographic and dental status from birth to 6 yr of age according to OIDP levels (n, %) in adolescents (n = 339) age 12 yr.
| Variables | Sample distribution | OIDP = 0 | OIDP = 1 | OIDP ≥ 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |||
| Male | 182(53.7) | 76(41.8) | 54(29.7) | 52(28.5) |
| Female | 157(46.3) | 66(42.0) | 48(30.6) | 43(27.4) |
| White | 270(79.7) | 113(41.9) | 83(30.7) | 74(27.4) |
| Blacks | 69(20.3) | 29(42.1) | 19(27.5) | 21(30.4) |
| > 6 | 45(13.3) | 21(46.6) | 17(37.9) | 7(15.5) |
| 1.1-6 | 232(68.6) | 94(40.5) | 66(28.5) | 72(31.0) |
| ≤ 1 | 61(18.1) | 27(44.3) | 18(29.5) | 16(26.2) |
| 0 | 124(36.7) | 54(43.5) | 40(32.3) | 30(24.2) |
| 1-3 | 92(27.2) | 38(41.3) | 25(27.2) | 29(31.5) |
| 4-19 | 122(36.1) | 50(41.0) | 36(29.5) | 36(29.5) |
| No | 173(52.2) | 73(42.2) | 49(28.3) | 51(29.5) |
| Yes | 165(48.8) | 69(41.8) | 52(31.5) | 44(26.7) |
| No | 277(81.9) | 120(43.3) | 85(30.7) | 72(26.0) |
| Yes | 61(18.1) | 22(36.1) | 16(26.2) | 23(37.7) |
Pelotas, Brazil, 2005.
*BMW = Brazilian Minimum Wage (around US$ 190,00 in June 2007)
Sample distribution of current socioeconomic, dental status, and dental visit according to OIDP levels (n, %) in adolescents (n = 339) age 12 yr.
| Variables | Sample distribution | OIDP = 0 | OIDP = 1 | OIDP ≥ 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | |||
| A + B | 63(18.9) | 30(47.6) | 16(25.4) | 17(27.0) |
| C | 108(32.3) | 49(45.4) | 35(32.4) | 24(22.2) |
| D + E | 163(48.8) | 61(37.4) | 48(29.5) | 54(33.1) |
| No | 200(59.0) | 96(48.0) | 64(32.0) | 40(20.0) |
| Yes | 139(41.0) | 46(33.1) | 38(27.3) | 55(39.6) |
| No | 298(87.9) | 134(44.9) | 92(30.9) | 72(24.2) |
| Yes | 41(12.1) | 8(19.5) | 10(24.4) | 23(56.1) |
| No | 285(85.1) | 119(41.8) | 85(29.8) | 81(28.4) |
| Yes | 50(14.9) | 23(44.2) | 15(28.9) | 14(26.9) |
| No | 285(85.1) | 115(40.1) | 87(30.5) | 83(29.1) |
| Yes | 50(14.9) | 24(48.0) | 15(30.0) | 11(22.0) |
| <11.5 | 113(33.3) | 53(46.9) | 40(35.4) | 20(17.7) |
| 11.5-28.0 | 110(32.5) | 51(46.4) | 28(25.5) | 31(28.1) |
| 28.5-92.0 | 116(34.2) | 38(32.8) | 34(29.3) | 44(37.9) |
| No | 253(74.6) | 111(43.9) | 83(32.8) | 59(23.3) |
| Yes | 86(25.4) | 31(36.0) | 19(22.1) | 36(41.9) |
| No | 229(67.6) | 101(44.1) | 66(28.8) | 62(27.1) |
| Yes | 110(32.4) | 41(37.3) | 36(32.7) | 33(30.0) |
| No | 261(76.9) | 111(42.5) | 80(30.7) | 70(26.8) |
| Yes | 78(23.1) | 31(39.7) | 22(28.2) | 25(32.1) |
| No | 206(60.8) | 94(45.6) | 53(25.7) | 59(28.6) |
| Yes | 133(39.2) | 48(36.1) | 49(36.8) | 36(27.1) |
| ≤ 3 mm | 245(73.3) | 109(44.5) | 71(29.0) | 65(26.5) |
| > 3 mm | 94(27.7) | 33(35.1) | 31(33.0) | 30(31.9) |
| No | 314(92.6) | 131(41.7) | 93(29.6) | 90(28.7) |
| Yes | 25(7.4) | 11(44.0) | 9(36.0) | 5(20.0) |
| Routine visit | 47(13.9) | 21(44.6) | 13(27.7) | 13(27.7) |
| Treatment | 67(19.8) | 27(40.2) | 20(29.9) | 20(29.9) |
| Did not attend | 224(66.3) | 94(42.0) | 68(30.3) | 62(27.7) |
| Yes | 23(6.8) | 10(43.5) | 6(26.1) | 7(30.4) |
| No | 316(93.2) | 132(41.8) | 96(30.4) | 88(27.8) |
| 339 | 142(41.9) | 102(30.1) | 95(28.0) | |
Pelotas, Brazil, 2005.
**According to the Brazil Criterion for Economic Classification proposed by ANEP.
Figure 2Prevalence of each oral health impact on daily performances on adolescents age 12 yr. Pelotas, Brazil, 2005.
Simple and multiple Poisson regression analysis of the relationship between socio-demographic and dental status variables according to OIDP (as discrete variable) in adolescents age 12 yr.
| Variables | Unadjusted | P | Adjusted | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | ||||
| Sex | 0.170 | 0.104a | ||
| Male | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Female | 1.2 (0.9;1.4) | 1.2 (1.0;1.5) | ||
| Maternal schooling at child birth | 0.141 | 0.013a | ||
| ≥ 9 yr | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| 5 - 8 yr | 1.1 (0.8;1.4) | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | ||
| ≤ 4 | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | 1.4 (1.0;1.9) | ||
| Mother employment status at child aged 6 month | <0.001 | <0.001a | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 1.5 (1.2;1.9) | 1.6 (1.3;2.0) | ||
| Untreated dental caries at age 6 | 0.043 | 0.016b | ||
| 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| 1-3 | 1.2 (1.0;1.6) | 1.2 (1.0;1.6) | ||
| 4-19 | 1.3 (1.0;1.6) | 1.4 (1.1;1.7) | ||
| Cross bite at age 6 yr | 0.020 | 0.058b | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 1.3 (1.0;1.7) | 1.3 (1.0;1.6) | ||
| Family economic status at age 12 | 0.138 | 0.612c | ||
| A + B | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| C | 1.1 (0.8;1.4) | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | ||
| D+E | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | 1.1 (0.8;1.5) | ||
| Untreated dental caries at age 12 | <0.001 | 0.029d | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 1.6 (1.3;1.9) | 1.3 (1.0;1.6) | ||
| Dental pain at age 12 | <0.001 | <0.001d | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 2.2 (1.8;2.8) | 1.9 (1.5;2.5) | ||
| Dental fluorosis at age 12 | 0.120 | 0.046d | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 0.8 (0.6;1.1) | 0.7 (0.5;1.0) | ||
| Gingival bleeding at aged 12 | 0.004 | 0.047d | ||
| <11.5% of teeth | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| 11.5-28.0% of teeth | 1.3 (1.0.1.7) | 1.1 (0.9;1.5) | ||
| 28.5-92.0% of teeth | 1.5 (1.1;1.9) | 1.3 (1.0;1.7) | ||
| Incisal crowding at aged 12 | <0.001 | 0.003d | ||
| No | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Yes | 1.5 (1.2;1.9) | 1.4 (1.1;1.8) | ||
Pelotas, Brazil, 2005 (n = 339).
Level 2: adjusted by variables from level 1
Level 4: adjusted by variables from level 1 e and level 2