| Literature DB >> 27430364 |
Daniela Mendes da Veiga Pessoa1, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli2, Kenio Costa de Lima2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brazil has severe socioeconomic inequalities, resulting in major oral health problems for the Brazilian elderly, such as tooth loss and, consequently, a need for oral rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate inequalities in complete denture need among older Brazilian adults in relation to social determinants at individual and contextual levels.Entities:
Keywords: Aged; Brazil; Complete dentures; Health inequalities; Socioeconomic status
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27430364 PMCID: PMC4948088 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0233-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Description of the oral health and social demographics characteristics of older people in Brazil
| Number | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Complete denture need | ||
| No | 4,204 | 56.0 |
| Yes | 3,299 | 44.0 |
| Age | ||
| 65–69 years | 4,318 | 56.7 |
| 70–74 years | 3,301 | 43.3 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 2,903 | 38.1 |
| Female | 4,716 | 61.9 |
| Race | ||
| White | 3,577 | 48.2 |
| Mixed | 3,849 | 51.8 |
| Socioeconomic status | ||
| Low | 5,406 | 71.5 |
| High | 2,158 | 28.5 |
| Region | ||
| North | 1,758 | 23.1 |
| Northeast | 2,294 | 30.1 |
| Southeast | 1,287 | 16.9 |
| Centerwest | 1,117 | 14.7 |
| South | 1,163 | 15.3 |
| Population size | ||
| Up to 20,000 inhabitants | 491 | 6.4 |
| 20,001–100,000 inhabitants | 647 | 8.5 |
| 100,001–500,000 inhabitants | 1,846 | 24.2 |
| More than 500,000 inhabitants | 4,635 | 60.8 |
| Type of municipality | ||
| Capital | 6,003 | 78.8 |
| Non-capital | 1,616 | 21.2 |
| HDI | ||
| 0.763 and over | 4,007 | 52.8 |
| Up to 0.762 | 3,612 | 47.4 |
Bivariate associations between complete denture need and the independent variables according the levels
| Complete denture need |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PR(CI 95 %) | |||
| Individual level | Yes | |||
|
| ||||
| 65–69 years | 4,253 | 41.5(40.7;42.3) | Ref | |
| 70–74 years | 3,250 | 47.2(45.6;48.8) | 1.14(1.08;1.19) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Male | 2,848 | 40.8(39.3;42.2) | Ref | |
| Female | 4,655 | 45.9(44.6;47.2) | 1.12(1.06;1.18) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| White | 3,518 | 38.8(37.5;40.0) | Ref | |
| Mixed | 3,792 | 48.6(47.1;50.1) | 1.25(1.19;1.32) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| High | 2,115 | 26.3(25.2;27.4) | Ref | |
| Low | 5,335 | 50.9(49.5;52.2) | 1.93(1.79;2.08) | <0.001 |
| City level | ||||
|
| ||||
| North | 1,721 | 53.7(51.2;56.2) | 1.76(1.60;1.94) | <0.001 |
| Northeast | 2,266 | 42.9(41.2;44.6) | 1.40(1.27;1.55) | <0.001 |
| Southeast | 1,277 | 39.8(37.6;41.9) | 1.30(1.17;1.46) | <0.001 |
| Centerwest | 1,091 | 50.0(47.1;52.9) | 1.64(1.47;1.82) | <0.001 |
| South | 1,148 | 30.5(28.8;32.2) | Ref | |
|
| ||||
| Up to 20,000 inhabitants | 484 | 56.8(51.8;61.8) | 1.42(1.30;1.52) | <0.001 |
| 20,001–100,000 inhabitants | 644 | 54.2(50.1;58.3) | 1.36(1.25;1.47) | <0.001 |
| 100,001–500,000 inhabitants | 1,805 | 47.3(41.2;49.4) | 1.18(1.12;1.26) | <0.001 |
| More than 500,000 inhabitants | 4,750 | 39.9(38.8;41.0) | Ref | |
|
| ||||
| Capital | 5,911 | 41.6(40.6;42.6) | Ref | |
| Non-capital | 1,592 | 52.8(50.2;55.4) | 1.27(1.20;1.34) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| 0.763 and over | 3,954 | 38.0(36.8;39.2) | Ref | |
| Up to 0.762 | 3,549 | 50.6(48.9;52.2) | 1.33(1.26;1.40) | <0.001 |
CI confidence interval, PR prevalence ratio
Fixed and random effects parameters in the multilevel mixed-effect Poisson regression analysis for the null model
| Complete denture need | ||
|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | Intercept | 95 % (CI) |
| City level | −0.76 | −0.82;−0.69 |
| Region level | −0.85 | −1.02;−0.68 |
| Population size level | −0.72 | −0.86;−0.58 |
| Type of municipality level | −0.76 | −0.93;−0.59 |
| Random effects | Variance (SE) | LR Test (Chi2; |
| City level | 0.06(0.01) | 84.1;<0.001 |
| Region level | 0.04(0.02) | 78.5;<0.001 |
| Population size level | 0.02(0.01) | 38.1;<0.001 |
| Type of municipality level | 0.01(0.01) | 25.14;<0.001 |
CI confidence interval, SE standard error, LR likehood ratio
Multilevel mixed-effect Poisson regression analysis for the complete denture need
| Complete denture need | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 ( | Model 2 ( | |||
| PR(95 % CI) |
| PR(95 % CI) |
| |
| Individual level | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 1.12 (1.06;1.18) | <0.001 | 1.14(1.06;1.22) | <0.001 |
| Age | ||||
| 70–74 years | 1.12 (1.07;1.18) | <0.001 | 1.12(1.05;1.20) | 0.001 |
| Race | ||||
| Mixed | 1.01 (0.99;1.03) | 0.053 | 1.00(0.98;1.03) | 0.519 |
| Socioeconomic status | ||||
| Low | 1.91 (1.77;2.07) | <0.001 | 1.81(1.65;1.99) | <0.001 |
| City level | ||||
| HDI | 1.20(1.08;1.34) | <0.001 | ||
| Fixed effects | ||||
| Intercept (95 % CI) | −1.39 (−1.51;−1.28) | −1.51(−1.63;−1.39) | ||
| Random effects | Variance (95 % CI) | Variance (95 % CI) | ||
| City level | 0.038 (0.02;0.07) | 0.021(0.009;0.049) | ||
| LR test (Chi2, | 39.76;<0.001 | 18.10;<0.001 | ||
PR prevalence ratio, CI confidence interval, HDI human development index. Model1 for the individual variables only, model 2 for individual + city