| Literature DB >> 31662759 |
Ashwini Dayma1, P Amith2, Venkat Raman Singh1, Nilotpol Kashyap3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the periodontal status among the leather factory workers in Dewas and to provide a baseline data for the oral health care and promotion programs.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31662759 PMCID: PMC6778860 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6037929
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Demographic distribution of factory workers according to age group, gender, and plant.
| Plant | Total |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanning | Footwear | ||||
|
| |||||
| 20–35 | 198 (35.7%) | 192 (48.4%) | 390 (45.8%) | 5.56 | 0.06 |
| 36–50 | 146 (26.3%) | 134 (33.8%) | 280 (32.9%) | ||
| >50 | 110 (19.8%) | 70 (17.6%) | 180 (21.1%) | ||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Male | 262 (52.6%) | 236 (47.3%) | 498 (58.5%) | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Female | 192 (54.5%) | 160 (45.4%) | 352 (41.4%) | ||
| Total | 454 | 396 | 850 | ||
Distribution of the periodontal status among subjects according to age group, gender, and plant.
| Healthy 0 | Bleeding 1 | Calculus 2 | Shallow pocket 3 | Deep pocket 4 |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20–35 | 40 (10.2%) | 30 (7.6%) | 136 (34.8%) | 112 (28.7%) | 72 (18.4%) | 71.0 | 0.001 (HS) |
| 36–50 | 20 (7.1%) | 40 (14.2%) | 98 (35%) | 91 (32.5%) | 31 (11.07%) | |||
| >50 | 10 (5%) | 25 (13.8%) | 37 (20.5%) | 37 (20.5%) | 71 (39.4%) | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| Tanning | 20 (4.4%) | 52 (11.4%) | 113 (24.8%) | 137 (30.1%) | 132 (29%) | 68.9 | 0.001 (HS) |
| Footwear | 50 (12.6%) | 43 (10.8%) | 158 (39.8%) | 103 (26%) | 42 (10.6%) | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| Male | 40 (8%) | 36 (7.2%) | 180 (36.1%) | 110 (22.2%) | 132 (26.1%) | 61.2 | 0.001 (HS) |
| Female | 30 (8.5%) | 59 (17.7%) | 91 (25.8%) | 130 (36.9%) | 42 (11.9%) | |||
| Total | 70 (8.2%) | 95 (11.1%) | 271 (31.8%) | 240 (28.2%) | 174 (20.4%) | |||
HS, highly significant.
Distribution of the mean number of sextant affected by periodontal disease according to age group, gender, and plant.
| Healthy 0 | Bleeding 1 | Calculus 2 | Shallow pocket 3 | Deep pocket 4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
|
| 20–35 | 1.82 ± 0.69 | 0.88 ± 1.42 | 1.25 ± 1.51 | 1.33 ± 1.54 | 0.43 ± 1.32 |
| 36–50 | 0.37 ± 0.78 | 1.86 ± 1.33 | 1.68 ± 1.655 | 1.55 ± 1.43 | 0.73 ± 1.59 | |
| >50 | 0.12 ± 0.48 | 2.29 ± 1.76 | 2.05 ± 2.11 | 1.89 ± 1.80 | 2.37 ± 2.33 | |
| Kruskal-Wallis test |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Tanning | 0.91 ± 072 | 1.1 ± 1.63 | 1.2 ± 1.70 | 1.2 ± 1.59 | 1.34 ± 2.06 |
| Footwear | 1.3 ± 0.37 | 2.1 ± 1.48 | 1.3 ± 2.40 | 1.6 ± 1.61 | 1.2 ± 0.824 | |
| Mann–Whitney |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Male | 0.8 ± 0.79 | 1.4 ± 1.62 | 1.2 ± 1.50 | 1.3 ± 1.56 | 1.6 ± 2.07 |
| Female | 1.5 ± 0.29 | 1.8 ± 1.57 | 1.7 ± 2.38 | 1..5 ± 1.63 | 0.9 ± 1.411 | |
| Mann–Whitney |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Distribution of the loss of attachment among factory workers according to age group, gender, and plant.
| 0–3 mm code 0 | 4-5 mm code 1 | 6–8 mm code 2 | 9–11 mm code 3 | >12 mm code 4 |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20–35 | 202 (51.8%) | 68 (17.4%) | 48 (12.3%) | 8 (2.1%) | 64 (16.4%) | 192.0 | 0.001 (HS) |
| 36–50 | 115 (41.1%) | 101 (36.1%) | 33 (11.8%) | 8 (2.9%) | 23 (8.2%) | |||
| >50 | 34 (18.9%) | 25 (13.9%) | 15 (8.3%) | 32 (17.8%) | 74 (41.1%) | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| Tanning | 187 (41.1%) | 122 (26.8%) | 42 (9.2%) | 17 (3.7%) | 86 (18.9%) | 16.8 | 0.002 (HS) |
| Footwear | 164 (41.4%) | 72 (18.1%) | 54 (13.6%) | 31 (7.8%) | 75 (18.9%) | |||
|
| ||||||||
|
| Male | 207 (41.6%) | 87 (17.5%) | 52 (10.4%) | 40 (8%) | 112 (22.5%) | 36.0 | 0.001 (HS) |
| Female | 144 (40.9%) | 107 (30.4%) | 44 (12.5%) | 8 (2.3%) | 49 (13.9%) | |||
| Total | 351 (41.3%) | 194 (22.8%) | 96 (11.3%) | 48 (5.6%) | 161 (18.9%) | |||
Distribution of mean number of sextant by loss of attachment of subjects according to age code, gender, and plant.
| 0–3 mm (0) | 4-5 mm (1) | 6–8 mm (2) | 9–11 mm (3) | >12 mm (4) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
|
| 20–35 | 3.99 ± 2.36 | 0.7 ± 1.13 | 0.40 ± 0.80 | 0.22 ± 0.64 | 0.17 ± 0.60 |
| 36–50 | 3.78 ± 2.07 | 0.70 ± 1.05 | 0.40 ± 0.80 | 0.37 ± 0.79 | 0.52 ± 1.24 | |
| >50 | 2.22 ± 2.28 | 1.41 ± 1.51 | 0.44 ± 0.83 | 1.33 ± 1.17 | 1.28 ± 1.61 | |
| Kruskal–Wallis test |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Tanning | 3.43 ± 2.42 | 0.86 ± 1.31 | 0.41 ± 0.81 | 0.61 ± 1.00 | 0.66 ± 1.31 |
| Footwear | 3.87 ± 2.11 | 1.11 ± 1.31 | 0.40 ± 0.80 | 0.28 ± 0.71 | 0.31 ± 0.95 | |
| Mann–Whitney |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| Male | 3.44 ± 2.44 | 0.80 ± 1.26 | 0.39 ± 0.79 | 0.66 ± 1.02 | 0.69 ± 1.34 |
| Female | 3.70 ± 2.21 | 1.12 ± 1.36 | 0.43 ± 0.82 | 0.34 ± 0.78 | 0.39 ± 1.04 | |
| Mann–Whitney |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
HS = highly significant.