M-A Fauroux1, A Germa2, P Tramini3, C Nabet4. 1. EA4203 Bio-nano laboratory, faculty of dentistry of Montpellier, 545, avenue du Pr JL Viala, 34193 Montpellier cedex 5, France. Electronic address: marie-alix.fauroux@umontpellier.fr. 2. Faculty of dentistry of Paris Descartes, 92120 Montrouge, France; Inserm, UMR1153, obstetrical, perinatal, and pediatric epidemiology (EPOPE) Team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center, 75004 Paris, France. Electronic address: alice.germa@parisdescartes.fr. 3. EA2415 clinical research university institute (IURC), faculty of dentistry of Montpellier, 545, avenue du Pr JL Viala, 34193 Montpellier cedex 5, France. Electronic address: paul.tramini@umontpellier.fr. 4. Inserm UMR 1027, faculty of dentistry of Toulouse, Toulouse university, 3, chemin des Maraîchers, 31062 Toulouse cedex 09, France. Electronic address: cathy.nabet@univ-tlse3.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of dental prosthetic treatment and to investigate the demographic, social, economic and medical factors associated with the use of fixed and removable dentures in a representative sample of adults living in France. METHODS: The data were obtained from the 2002-2003 Decennial Health Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the population living in France, which included 29,679 adults. Information was collected by interview. The variables collected were fixed denture, removable denture, age, gender, number of children, area of residence, nationality, educational attainment, family social status, employment status, annual household income per capita, supplementary insurance, chronic disease, eyesight problems/glasses, hearing problems/hearing aids. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to study the relationship between prosthetic treatment and demographic, socioeconomic and medical characteristics unadjusted, adjusted for age and adjusted for all the characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of prosthetic treatment was 34.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): [34.1; 35.2]) for fixed prosthetic dentures and 13.8% (95% CI: [13.4; 14.2]) for removable prosthetic dentures. We showed a gradient between educational attainment and removable dentures; the odds ratio adjusted for all the variables (aOR) associated with no or primary education compared to post-secondary education was 2.56; 95% CI: [2.09; 3.13]. When annual household income per capita was low, subjects were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.68; 95% CI: [0.62; 0.75]) than those with high annual household income per capita. Individuals without insurance less often reported fixed dentures than those with private insurance. Those reporting chronic disease were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.87; 95% CI: [0.79; 0.95]) but more likely to report removable dentures (aOR=1.29; 95% CI: [1.17; 1.43]) than those without chronic disease. CONCLUSION: This study reveals social, economic and medical inequalities in fixed and removable prosthetic treatment among adults in France.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of dental prosthetic treatment and to investigate the demographic, social, economic and medical factors associated with the use of fixed and removable dentures in a representative sample of adults living in France. METHODS: The data were obtained from the 2002-2003 Decennial Health Survey, a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the population living in France, which included 29,679 adults. Information was collected by interview. The variables collected were fixed denture, removable denture, age, gender, number of children, area of residence, nationality, educational attainment, family social status, employment status, annual household income per capita, supplementary insurance, chronic disease, eyesight problems/glasses, hearing problems/hearing aids. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to study the relationship between prosthetic treatment and demographic, socioeconomic and medical characteristics unadjusted, adjusted for age and adjusted for all the characteristics. RESULTS: The prevalence of prosthetic treatment was 34.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): [34.1; 35.2]) for fixed prosthetic dentures and 13.8% (95% CI: [13.4; 14.2]) for removable prosthetic dentures. We showed a gradient between educational attainment and removable dentures; the odds ratio adjusted for all the variables (aOR) associated with no or primary education compared to post-secondary education was 2.56; 95% CI: [2.09; 3.13]. When annual household income per capita was low, subjects were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.68; 95% CI: [0.62; 0.75]) than those with high annual household income per capita. Individuals without insurance less often reported fixed dentures than those with private insurance. Those reporting chronic disease were less likely to report fixed dentures (aOR=0.87; 95% CI: [0.79; 0.95]) but more likely to report removable dentures (aOR=1.29; 95% CI: [1.17; 1.43]) than those without chronic disease. CONCLUSION: This study reveals social, economic and medical inequalities in fixed and removable prosthetic treatment among adults in France.
Authors: Gianmaria D'Addazio; Manlio Santilli; Bruna Sinjari; Edit Xhajanka; Imena Rexhepi; Rocco Mangifesta; Sergio Caputi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrei Mihai Caracaş; Horia Octavian Manolea; Ioana Mitruţ; Ruxandra Elena Caracaş; Daniel Adrian Ţârtea; Maria Alexandra Drăghici; Cristiana Marga Luiza Nistor; Dragoş Ovidiu Alexandru Journal: Curr Health Sci J Date: 2021-09-30