| Literature DB >> 28608827 |
Han-Na Kim1, Jeong-Hee Kim2, Se-Yeon Kim3,4, Jin-Bom Kim5,6.
Abstract
This study aimed to confirm the association between the community water fluoridation (CWF) programme and dental caries prevention on permanent teeth, comparing to a control area, neighbouring population without the programme, and verifying whether the programme can reduce the socio-economic inequality related to the oral health of children in Korea. Evaluation surveys were conducted among 6-, 8-, and 11-year-old children living in Okcheon (CWF) and neighbouring Yeongdong (non-CWF, control area) towns in South Korea. Data on monthly family income, caregiver educational level, and Family Affluence Scale scores were evaluated using questionnaires that were distributed to the parents. The effectiveness of CWF in caries reduction was calculated based on the differences in decayed, missing, and filled teeth and decayed, missing, and filled tooth surfaces indices between the two towns. The data were analysed using logistic regression and univariate analysis of variance. Both 8- and 11-year-old children living in the CWF area had lower dental caries prevalence than those living in the non-CWF community. Differences in dental caries prevalence based on educational level were found in the control area but not in the CWF area. Socio-economic factor-related inequality in oral health were observed in the non-CWF community. Additionally, 8- and 11-year-old children living in the CWF area displayed lower dental caries prevalence in the pit-and-fissure and smooth surfaces than those living in the non-CWF community. These results suggest that CWF programmes are effective in the prevention of caries on permanent teeth and can reduce oral health inequalities among children. The implementation of CWF programmes should be sustained to overcome oral health inequalities due to socio-economic factors and improve children's overall oral health.Entities:
Keywords: children; community water fluoridation; dental caries; dental caries reduction; inequality; oral health; social inequalities
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28608827 PMCID: PMC5486317 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14060631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Number of participants in areas with and without community water fluoridation (CWF).
| Age | Non-CWF Area | CWF Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | |
| Total | 627 | 322 | 305 | 686 | 353 | 333 |
| 6 | 164 | 79 | 85 | 221 | 104 | 117 |
| 8 | 203 | 115 | 88 | 211 | 101 | 110 |
| 11 | 260 | 128 | 132 | 254 | 148 | 106 |
Characteristics and oral health status of the participants.
| Variables | Category | Non-CWF Area | CWF Area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |||
| Monthly family income | Low | 160 | 25.5 | 153 | 22.3 | 0.031 |
| Middle-low | 149 | 23.8 | 209 | 30.5 | ||
| Middle-high | 157 | 25.0 | 174 | 25.4 | ||
| High | 161 | 25.7 | 150 | 21.9 | ||
| Householder educational level | Primary school or lower | 33 | 5.3 | 43 | 6.3 | 0.154 |
| Secondary school | 308 | 49.1 | 301 | 43.9 | ||
| College/university graduate or higher | 286 | 45.6 | 342 | 49.9 | ||
| Family Affluence Scale | Low (0–2) | 30 | 4.8 | 55 | 8.0 | 0.019 |
| Middle (3–5) | 342 | 54.5 | 388 | 56.6 | ||
| High (6–9) | 255 | 40.7 | 243 | 35.4 | ||
| Percentage of children with dental sealant | 627 | 49.1 | 686 | 37.0 | <0.001 | |
* Results of the chi-square test.
Decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT), decayed, missing, and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS), pit-and-fissure DMFS, and smooth surface DMFS scores adjusted for confounding factors.
| Caries Experience | Age | Non-CWF Area | CWF Area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean * | SE | Mean * | SE | |||
| DMFT a | 6 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.940 |
| 8 | 0.56 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.06 | <0.001 | |
| 11 | 1.43 | 0.10 | 0.86 | 0.10 | <0.001 | |
| DMFS b | 6 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.05 | 0.769 |
| 8 | 0.79 | 0.09 | 0.22 | 0.08 | <0.001 | |
| 11 | 2.20 | 0.17 | 1.31 | 0.17 | <0.001 | |
| Pit-and-fissure DMFS c | 6 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.536 |
| 8 | 0.52 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.05 | <0.001 | |
| 11 | 1.27 | 0.09 | 0.75 | 0.09 | <0.001 | |
| Smooth surface DMFS d | 6 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.890 |
| 8 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.004 | |
| 11 | 0.93 | 0.09 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.008 | |
Denotes the mean number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth; b Denotes the mean number of decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces; c Denotes the mean number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth on the pit-and-fissure surfaces; d Denotes the mean number of decayed, missing, and filled tooth surfaces on the smooth surfaces; * Indicates estimated marginal means; † Calculated using independent sample t-test between the non-CWF area and CWF areas after adjusting for sex, monthly family income, householder educational level, Family Affluence Scale score, and number of sealed teeth.
Odds ratio (OR) of caries experience adjusted for related variables.
| Variables | Category | Non-CWF Area | CWF Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) * | OR (95% CI) * | ||
| Age | 1.66 (1.50, 1.84) | 1.51 (1.35, 1.69) | |
| Sex (ref = male) | 1.72 (1.17, 2.52) | 1.50 (0.99, 2.28) | |
| Monthly family income (ref = high) | Low | 0.61 (0.35, 1.06) | 1.38 (0.72, 2.63) |
| Middle-low | 1.04 (0.59, 1.83) | 1.63 (0.86, 3.12) | |
| Middle-high | 1.41 (0.78, 2.54) | 2.03 (1.00, 4.13) | |
| Householder educational level (ref = primary school or lower) | Secondary school | 0.96 (0.63, 1.45) | 1.13 (0.71, 1.82) |
| College/university graduate or higher | 2.66 (1.08, 6.54) | 1.65 (0.76, 3.61) | |
| Family Affluence Scale (ref = high) | Middle | 0.73 (0.48, 1.10) | 1.00 (0.60, 1.62) |
| Low | 1.02 (0.38, 2.75) | 1.72 (0.78, 3.77) | |
| Number of fissure-sealed tooth surface | 0.80 (0.70, 0.91) | 1.09 (0.97, 1.22) |
Nagelkerke R-square = 0.30 and 0.19 for non-CWF area and CWF areas, respectively; * Results of the logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, living area, monthly family income, householder educational level, and Family Affluence Scale level; bold letters indicate significant differences.
Univariate analysis of variance for decayed, missing, and filled teeth scores.
| Parameter | Category | Non-CWF Area | CWF Area | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | B | SE | ||||
| Intercept | −1.1 | 0.26 | <0.001 | −0.86 | 0.18 | <0.001 | |
| Age | 0.29 | 0.03 | <0.001 | 0.15 | 0.02 | <0.001 | |
| Sex (ref = male) | Male | −0.39 | 0.10 | <0.001 | −0.22 | 0.07 | 0.004 |
| Monthly family income (ref = high) | Low | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.82 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.83 |
| Middle-low | −0.17 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.48 | |
| Middle-high | −0.24 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 1.00 | |
| Householder educational level (ref = college/university graduate or higher) | Primary school or lower | 1.03 | 0.25 | <0.001 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.46 |
| Secondary school | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.71 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.26 | |
| Family Affluence Scale | Low | −0.08 | 0.26 | 0.76 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.22 |
| Middle | −0.08 | 0.11 | 0.48 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.94 | |
| High | 0 | – | – | 0 | – | – | |
| Number of fissure-sealed teeth | −0.22 | 0.03 | <0.001 | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.71 | |
R-square for non-CWF area = 0.26 (adjusted R-square = 0.25); R-square for CWF area = 0.11 (adjusted R-square = 0.10); Bold letters indicate significant differences.
Figure 1Distribution of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) scores based on the monthly family income. The scores were calculated from the univariate analysis of variance: a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.58; b Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.27; c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.66; d Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.89.
Figure 2Distribution of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) scores based on the householder educational levels (year). The scores were calculated from the univariate analysis of variance: a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 9.93; b Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.61; c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.40.
Figure 3Distribution of decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) scores based on the Family Affluence Scale scores. The scores were calculated from the univariate analysis of variance: a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.53; b Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.56; c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: age = 8.63.
Figure 4Box plots for the decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) scores of 11-year-old children based on the Family Affluence Scale (FAS) levels.