| Literature DB >> 32934655 |
Paula Margozzini1, Rodrigo Berrios1, Rosario García-Huidobro2, Claudia Véliz2, Carolina Del Valle3, Juan Pablo Vargas2, Oslando Padilla1, Duniel Ortuño2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several population studies have addressed oral health inequalities. Edentulism, functional dentition, and number of remaining teeth have been associated with different socioeconomic level measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between educational level and tooth loss in the Chilean population aged 15 years and above, based on the 2016-2017 National Health Survey (ENS 2016-2017). Material and Methods. The sample for this cross-sectional study comprised 5473 subjects. The main independent variable was educational level (LEL: low, MEL: medium, and HEL: high). To measure tooth loss, we considered the variables number of remaining teeth, edentulism, and functional dentition. We used logistic regressions to assess the condition of dentition according to the subject's EL. As to the number of teeth variable, linear regressions were conducted. The analyses were carried out considering the complex sampling design in SPSS 24.0.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32934655 PMCID: PMC7479467 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8848190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Dent ISSN: 1687-8728
Survey respondents' general characteristics (mean age: 43.13 y). ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
| Variables |
|
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Men | 2003 (36.6) |
| Women | 3470 (63.4) |
| Total | 5473 |
|
| |
| Age (years) | |
| 15–24 y | 728 (13.3) |
| 25–44 y | 1561 (28.5) |
| 45–64 y | 1836 (33.5) |
| 65 y and above | 1348 (24.7) |
|
| |
| EL | |
| Low (LEL) | 1329 (24.3) |
| Medium (MEL) | 2948 (53.9) |
| High (HEL) | 1196 (21.8) |
EL, educational level; n, sample size.
Number of teeth in the maxilla and mandible according to EL, n = 5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
| Number of teeth in the maxilla | Number of teeth in the mandible | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EL | Mean | Error | CI 95% | Mean | Error | CI 95% |
|
| 9.06 | 0.321 | [8.43–9.69] | 10.82 | 0.271 | [10.29–11.36] |
| M ( | 9.40 | 0.330 | [8.76–10.05] | 11.15 | 0.280 | [10.60–11.70] |
| W ( | 8.72 | 0.325 | [8.08–9.36] | 10.50 | 0.275 | [9.96–11.04] |
|
| ||||||
|
| 10.65 | 0.134 | [10.38–10.91] | 11.65 | 0.115 | [11.43–11.88] |
| M ( | 10.99 | 0.159 | [10.68–11.30] | 11.98 | 0.133 | [11.71–12.24] |
| W ( | 10.30 | 0.137 | [10.04–10.57] | 11.33 | 0.124 | [11.09–11.57] |
|
| ||||||
|
| 12.17 | 0.178 | [11.82–12.52] | 12.54 | 0.130 | [12.29–12.80] |
| M ( | 12.51 | 0.189 | [12.14–12.88] | 12.87 | 0.142 | [12.59–13.15] |
| W ( | 11.83 | 0.190 | [11.46–12.20] | 12.22 | 0.143 | [11.94–12.50] |
Adjusted linear regression models by age, sex, and location. M, men, W, women, and EL, educational level.
Prevalence of edentulism in the maxilla according to EL, n = 5473, ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
| EL | Prevalence | CI 95% | OR | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32.88 | [31.63–34.12] | 7.51 | [3.50–16.10] |
| M ( | 23.41 | [19.56–27.26] | — | — |
| W ( | 42.35 | [38.71–45.99] | — | — |
|
| ||||
|
| 5.13 | [4.63–5.64] | 3.36 | [1.50–7.52] |
| M ( | 3.88 | [3.34–4.43] | — | — |
| W ( | 6.30 | [5.55–7.05] | — | — |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.29 | [0.01–1.65] | 1 | — |
| M ( | 1.50 | [0.09–2.08] | — | — |
| W ( | 1.02 | [0.07–1.30] | — | — |
Adjusted logistic regression models by age, sex, and location. M, men, W, women, and EL, educational level.
Prevalence of edentulism in the mandible according to EL, n = 5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
| EL | Prevalence | CI 95% | OR | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 21.19 | [19.24–23.14] | 6.06 | [2.68–13.68] |
| M ( | 15.12 | [12.31–17.94] | — | — |
| W ( | 25.40 | [22.82–27.98] | — | — |
|
| ||||
|
| 2.97 | [2.65–3.28] | 3.07 | [1.33–7.09] |
| M ( | 1.83 | [1.56–2.10] | —— | — |
| W ( | 4.03 | [3.53–4.53] | — | — |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.07 | [0.05–0.09] | 1 | — |
| M ( | 0.06 | [0.03–0.08] | —— | — |
| W ( | 0.09 | [0.07–1.18] | — | — |
Adjusted logistic regression models by age, sex, and location. M, men, W, women, and EL, educational level.
Prevalence of functional dentition according to EL, n = 5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
| EL | Prevalence | CI 95% | OR | CI 95% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 28.82 | [25.51–32.13] | 1 | — |
| M ( | 31.83 | [26.04–37.61] | — | —— |
| W ( | 26.74 | [22.86–30.62] | — | — |
|
| ||||
|
| 79.53 | [78.18–80.88] | 2.81 | [2.03–3.87] |
| M ( | 82.20 | [80.36–84.04] | — | — |
| W ( | 77.03 | [75.20–78.86] | — | —— |
|
| ||||
|
| 94.42 | [93.23–95.61] | 13.33 | [8.02–22.15] |
| M ( | 94.50 | [92.83–96.15] | — | — |
| W ( | 94.34 | [93.06–95.63] | —— | — |
Adjusted logistic regression models by age, sex, and location. M, men, W, women, and EL, educational level.