| Literature DB >> 32774376 |
Yoshiaki Nomura1, Ayako Okada2, Erika Kakuta3, Ryoko Otsuka1, Hideaki Saito4, Hiroshi Maekawa4, Hideki Daikoku4, Nobuhiro Hanada1, Tamotsu Sato4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Japan's super-aging society, it is required to establish a home dental service provision system. It is necessary to analyze the current state of visiting dentistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32774376 PMCID: PMC7399789 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7316796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Frequency of place and contents of home dental care.
| Home | Nursing home | Home and nursing home | Total |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denture | − | 10 | 5 | 4 | 152 | <0.001 |
| + | 52 | 49 | 100 | 201 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Dental caries | − | 53 | 39 | 41 | 266 | <0.001 |
| + | 9 | 15 | 63 | 87 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Oral surgery | − | 56 | 44 | 49 | 282 | <0.001 |
| + | 6 | 10 | 55 | 71 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Periodontal disease | − | 45 | 43 | 49 | 270 | <0.001 |
| + | 17 | 11 | 55 | 83 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Oral care | − | 39 | 28 | 34 | 234 | <0.001 |
| + | 23 | 26 | 70 | 119 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Others | − | 59 | 54 | 98 | 344 | 0.014 |
| + | 3 | 0 | 6 | 9 | ||
P values were calculated by χ2 tests.
Results of three-parameter logistic model for the contents of home dental care.
| Discrimination | Difficulty | Guessing | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denture | 25.47 | 0.26 | 0.18 |
| Dental caries | 4.26 | 0.68 | <0.001 |
| Oral surgery | 3.22 | 0.90 | <0.001 |
| Periodontal disease | 4.18 | 0.72 | <0.001 |
| Oral care | 2.99 | 0.45 | <0.001 |
| Others | 15.47 | 2.34 | 0.01 |
Parameters were estimated by maximum likelihood estimation using the following formula:P(θ)=C+(1 − c)/1+e(θ − b), a: discrimination parameter, b: difficulty parameter, c: guessing parameter.
Figure 1Item response curves and item information curves of the home dental care treatment.
Number of dental staffs with or without implementation of home dental care.
| Home dental care | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home | Nursing home | ||||||
| − |
|
| − |
|
| ||
| Dentist | Regular | 1.20+/−0.49 | 1.35+/−0.71 | 0.024 | 1.27+/−0.57 | 1.28+/−0.66 | 0.948 |
| Part-time | 0.30+/−0.74 | 0.37+/−0.86 | 0.424 | 0.28+/−0.74 | 0.40+/−0.87 | 0.078 | |
|
| |||||||
| Dental hygienist | Regular | 1.16+/−1.12 | 1.52+/−1.53 | 0.030 | 1.19+/−1.30 | 1.50+/−1.38 | 0.017 |
| Part-time | 0.36+/−0.74 | 0.44+/−0.77 | 0.191 | 0.34+/−0.73 | 0.46+/−0.78 | 0.082 | |
|
| |||||||
| Dental assistant | Regular | 1.27+/−1.22 | 1.59+/−1.29 | 0.009 | 1.29+/−1.28 | 1.58+/−1.24 | 0.007 |
| Part-time | 0.33+/−0.72 | 0.37+/−0.79 | 0.927 | 0.33+/−0.77 | 0.37+/−0.73 | 0.204 | |
P values were calculated by Mann–Whitney U tests. Numbers of regular attendees of dental hygienists and dental assistants were statistically significant.
Figure 2Histogram of the number of dental visits per year. Both at home and nursing home showed skewed distribution.
Zero-inflated model for number of home dental care visits predicted by human resources.
| Dental care | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home | Nursing home | ||||||
| Estimate | SD |
| Estimate | SD |
| ||
| Count model (negative binominal, log link): number of visits per year | |||||||
| (Intercept) | 0.97 | 0.42 | 0.021 | 3.30 | 0.48 | <0.001 | |
| Dentist | Regular | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.146 | 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.864 |
| Part-time | −0.07 | 0.31 | 0.811 | 0.04 | 0.23 | 0.858 | |
| Dental hygienist | Regular | 0.003 | 0.14 | 0.981 | −0.53 | 0.15 | <0.001 |
| Part-time | 0.63 | 0.27 | 0.019 | 0.74 | 0.22 | 0.001 | |
| Dental assistant | Regular | −0.10 | 0.16 | 0.527 | −0.54 | 0.17 | 0.001 |
| Part-time | −0.05 | 0.25 | 0.857 | 1.44 | 0.34 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
| Zero-inflation model: implementation or not | |||||||
| (Intercept) | −79.94 | 66121 | 0.999 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.325 | |
| Dentist | Regular | 81.22 | 66121 | 0.999 | 0.42 | 0.86 | 0.625 |
| Part-time | 52.45 | 33061 | 0.999 | 0.05 | 0.32 | 0.864 | |
| Dental hygienist | Regular | −47.58 | 33061 | 0.999 | −1.33 | 0.44 | 0.003 |
| Part-time | −0.36 | 0.68 | 0.599 | −0.12 | 0.28 | 0.668 | |
| Dental assistant | Regular | −84.12 | 66121 | 0.999 | −1.16 | 0.49 | 0.018 |
| Part-time | −59.05 | 33061 | 0.999 | 0.75 | 0.37 | 0.041 | |
| AIC | 1344.597 | 1467.303 | |||||
Figure 3Biplot by correspondence analysis of implemented place and contents of visiting dental treatment.