US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are advised to have at least one dental examination per year. It is unclear to what extent different subgroups of US diabetic adults closely follow this recommendation. Thus, we assessed dental care utilization and related factors in a representative sample of US diabetic adults from rural and urban counties.
METHODS: Cross-sectional data were from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Survey logistic regression was used to account for the complex sampling design.
RESULTS: Among 40,585 eligible participants, 24,887 (60% of the population) had at least one dental visit for any reason within the past year. The lowest compliance was observed among edentulous participants (27%, adjusted OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.22-0.31 vs. fully dentate). Dental compliance was also negatively associated with having a lower income or education, ever being a smoker, or having barriers to access to care. Rural residents had lower dental compliance compared to urban residents, particularly those without healthcare coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental compliance among US adult diabetic individuals was low, particularly among rural residents, and as compared to other recommended diabetic care practices. Future public health interventions may target rural individuals without healthcare coverage, smokers and edentulous individuals. There is a need to integrate dental and medical care to facilitate cross-talks among different health professionals, so that educational preventive messages are reinforced at every healthcare visit.

Introduction

The number of diabetes cases worldwide is expected to grow to 4.4% by 2030 from just 2.8% in 2000 [1]. More than 90% of diabetic patients have oral manifestations, ranging from dental caries to xerostomia, periodontal disease, sensory disorders, taste problems, salivary gland dysfunction, and oral infections [2].

Diabetes and oral disease share a bidirectional relationship. Acute oral complications are commonly seen in poorly controlled diabetic patients [3-6]. Diabetic patients are more likely to develop periodontal disease compared to non-diabetic patients, and periodontitis progresses more rapidly in poorly controlled diabetic individuals [7,8].

Severe periodontal disease may be a warning sign of undiagnosed diabetes [9]. Periodontal treatment can reduce glycemia among diabetic patients [10].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommend that diabetic patients have a dental examination at least once every year [11,12]. According to Healthy People 2020, the goal is that 61.2% or more of people with diabetes have an annual dental examination; however, in 2008 the age-adjusted percentage of US dentate diabetic patients who had been to the dentist within the past year was 55.6% [13].

Regular dental visits are useful not only to screen, diagnose and treat oral diseases, but they can also serve as an additional opportunity to provide counseling to diabetic patients, such as emphasizing the need for regular blood glucose checks and maintaining appropriate glycemic control [14]. Dental visits may also identify diabetic or pre-diabetic patients unaware of their risk or condition [15].

Prior studies have shown that the frequency of dental visits among diabetic patients is directly related to patients’ income level, education, and access to affordable insurance [16-18]. However, African Americans or Hispanics with diabetes, or diabetic individuals with fewer natural teeth are less likely to have had a dental visit within the past year [17,18]. Additionally, prior studies of the general US adult population have reported that rural residents have lower odds of having received preventive dental procedures or having had a dental visit in the past year compared to metropolitan residents [19,20].

Although diabetic patients are advised to have a dental examination at least annually, it is unclear to what extent different subgroups of US diabetic adults from rural and urban counties closely follow this recommendation. Thus, we assessed dental care utilization and identified specific factors associated with annual dental visits in a representative sample of US diabetic adults overall, as well as among rural and urban residents.

Materials and methods

We analyzed the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_2018.html), a phone-based national survey of the civilian, noninstitutionalized adult population aged 18 or older conducted by the CDC using a complex multistage probability sample [21]. The analyses included participants with diabetes mellitus and complete data on the variables of interest. Individuals with gestational diabetes, pre-diabetes, or borderline diabetes were excluded.

The outcome variable was dental care compliance, defined as having visited a dentist, dental hygienist or dental clinic for any reason within the past year. Independent variables included self-reported information on demographic, socio-economic, health and access-to-care factors, and living in a rural or urban county. Demographic factors were age, sex and race/ethnicity. Socioeconomic factors included marital status, annual household income, education, employment status, smoking status, exercise in the past 30 days, and average number of alcoholic drinks per day in the past 30 days. Health factors included self-reported current general health, poor mental health (stress, depression and problems with emotions during the past 30 days), poor physical health (physical illness and injury during the past 30 days) and Body Mass Index (BMI). Access-to-care factors were healthcare coverage (including health insurance, prepaid plans such as HMOs, or government plans such as Medicare, or Indian Health Service), having a personal doctor, and perceiving cost as a barrier to medical care.

To account for the complex, stratified, multistage sampling design we used the SAS (Version 9.4, SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC) procedures SURVEYFREQ, and SURVEYLOGISTIC. These procedures incorporate survey design variables (weights, strata, and primary sampling units) in the analyses to obtain nationally representative estimates. Counts and percentages were used for descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable logistics regression models were used to calculate crude or adjusted odds ratio (OR or AOR) with 95% CI for the association between dental compliance and the independent variables. The final model was identified via backward variable selection using p>0.1 for removal. We also conducted separate sub-analyses by urban and rural residence using predictors identified in the full model.

Results

The final number of eligible participants was 40,585 (Fig 1). Sixty-one percent of participants (corresponding to 19,281,982 or 60% of the US population) had at least one dental visit within the past year.

Fig 1

Study flow chart.

A lower percentage of Hispanics (51%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (55%) had an annual dental visit compared to non-Hispanic Whites (62%; Table 1). However, after adjusting for other variables, compliance was similar across different race/ethnicity and age groups (Table 2). Females had 18% higher adjusted odds of having had at least one dental visit within the past year compared to males.

Table 1

Dental visit compliance by participants’ characteristics.

Characteristics	Dental visit compliance (n = 40,585; N = 19,281,982)
	Yes (n = 24,887; N = 11,506,723)		No (n = 15,698; N = 7,775,260)
	Sample frequency	Population estimate	Sample frequency	Population estimate
	n	N (thousand; %)*	n	N (thousand; %)*
Age (years)
18–44	1,749	1,527.2 (60.0)	1,208	1,018.9 (40.0)
45–64	9,752	5,148.3 (58.7)	6,527	3,629.5 (41.3)
65 or older	13,386	4,831.2 (60.7)	7,963	3,126.8 (39.3)
Sex
Male	12,738	5,224.5 (60.4)	7,837	4,122.0 (39.6)
Female	12,149	11,506.7 (58.8)	7,861	3,653.2 (41.2)
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic (NH) White	18,843	7,510.9 (62.0)	11,122	4,603.8 (38.0)
NH Black	2,674	1,558.4 (54.6)	2,186	1,294.2 (45.4)
NH Other/Multiracial	1,906	964.7 (66.5)	1,252	485.4 (33.5)
Hispanic	1,464	1,472.7 (51.4)	1,138	1,391.8 (48.6)
Marital status
Couple	14,374	7,229.3 (65.1)	6,848	3,869.8 (34.9)
Divorced/Separated/Never married	6,689	3,034.1 (52.4)	5,750	2,751.0 (47.6)
Widowed	3,824	1,243.3 (51.9)	3,100	1,154.5 (48.1)
Education
< High school	1,484	1,382.2 (41.1)	2,394	1,978.3 (58.9)
High school graduate	6,473	2,967.8 (53.2)	6,015	2,608.5 (46.8)
Some college/Technical	7,585	3,990.0 (63.6)	4,557	2,283.4 (34.6)
College graduate	9,345	3,166.7 (77.8)	2,732	905.0 (22.2)
Income ($)
<15,000	2,287	1,203.9 (41.4)	3,474	1,706.1 (58.6)
15,000–34,999	6,838	3,080.3 (48.4)	6,948	3,277.8 (51.6)
35,000–49,999	3,843	1,461.5 (60.0)	2,025	973.3 (40.0)
≥50,000	11,919	5,761.1 (76.0)	3,251	1,818.1 (24.0)
Employment
Employed	8,809	4,689.4 (65.7)	4,065	2,452.1 (34.3)
Homemaker/Student/Retired	12,684	4,974.3 (62.0)	7,210	3,045.6 (38.0)
Not employed/Unable to work	3,394	1,843.0 (44.7)	4,423	2,277.6 (55.3)
Healthcare coverage†
Yes	24,144	11,029.5 (61.4)	14,597	6,921.3 (38.6)
No	743	477.2 (35.8)	1,101	854.0 (64.2)
Personal doctor╪
Yes	23,841	10,949.9 (60.9)	14,517	7,023.3 (39.1)
No	1,046	556.8 (42.5)	1,181	752.0 (57.5)
Medical cost§
Yes	1,899	1,114.5 (42.9)	2,582	1,483.6 (57.1)
No	22,988	10,392.3 (62.3)	13,116	6,291.7 (37.7)
Self-reported general health
Good/Better	16,496	7,354.0 (66.9)	7,611	3,631.7 (33.1)
Fair/Poor	8,391	4,152.8 (50.1)	8,087	4,143.5 (49.9)
Number of permanent teeth removed
None	8,811	4,294.1 (68.8)	3,438	1,946.1 (31.2)
1–5	9,703	4,467.2 (64.4)	4,225	2,466.5 (35.6)
6+	5,022	2,145.8 (54.9)	3,857	1,761.9 (45.1)
All	1,351	599.6 (27.2)	4,178	1,600.8 (72.8)
Smoking statusǁ
Current	2,535	1,312.1 (45.2)	3,194	1,589.8 (54.8)
Former	8,964	3,931.3 (59.3)	5,834	2,701.0 (40.7)
Never	13,388	6,263.3 (64.3)	6,670	3,484.5 (35.7)
Alcohol intake in past 30 days
None	14,919	6,813.8 (55.9)	11,253	5,366.2 (44.1)
1 drink/day	5,351	2,269.2 (69.6)	2,108	991.6 (30.4)
2+ drinks/day	4,617	2,423.8 (63.1)	2,337	1,417.5 (36.9)
Poor mental health in past 30 days
Yes	7,843	3,728.0 (54.0)	6,375	3,172.8 (46.0)
No	17,044	7,778.7 (62.8)	9,323	4,602.4 (37.2)
Poor physical health in past 30 days
Yes	12,157	5,645.8 (54.9)	9,356	4,642.6 (45.1)
No	12,730	5,860.9 (65.2)	6,342	3,132.6 (34.8)
Exercise in past 30 days¶
Yes	16,891	7,929.5 (64.7)	8,482	4,329.7 (35.3)
No	7,996	3,577.2 (50.9)	7,216	3,445.6 (49.1)
Body Mass Index (BMI) #
Underweight/Normal weight	3,368	1,630.5 (60.9)	2,104	1,045.1 (39.1)
Overweight	8,012	3,639.4 (61.6)	4,515	2,265.0 (38.4)
Obese	13,507	6,236.9 (58.3)	9,079	4,465.1 (41.7)
Residence
Urban	21,017	10,683.3 (60.5)	12,577	6,974.8 (39.5)
Rural	3,870	823.4 (50.7)	3,121	800.4 (49.3)

*Population estimates (N and %) are adjusted for the complex sampling design.

†Healthcare coverage: Has any kind of health care coverage, including health insurance, prepaid plans such as health maintenance organization (HMO), government plans such as Medicare, or Indian Health Service.

╪Personal doctor: Has a personal doctor or health care provider.

§Medical cost: Could not see a doctor because of cost.

ǁSmoking status: Current: Smokes every day or some days, Former: Smoked before, Never: Never smoked.

¶Exercise: Participated in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise in the past 30 days.

#BMI; Underweight/Normal weight: BMI<25, Overweight: 25≤BMI <30, Obese: BMI≥30.

Table 2

Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) for dental visit compliance by participants’ characteristics (n = 40,585; N = 19,281,982).

Characteristics	Univariable	Full model*	Final model*
	Crude OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)
Age (years)
18–44 vs 65 or older	0.97 (0.83, 1.13)	1.10 (0.89, 1.35)	_
45–64 vs 65 or older	0.92 (0.84, 1.01)	1.02 (0.89, 1.18)
Sex
Female vs Male	0.94 (0.86, 1.03)	1.19 (1.07, 1.33)	1.18 (1.06, 1.31)
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic (NH) Black vs NH White	0.74 (0.65, 0.83)	0.93 (0.81, 1.06)	_
Hispanic vs NH White	0.65 (0.55, 0.76)	0.90 (0.74, 1.10)
NH Other/Multiracial vs NH White	1.22 (0.98, 1.51)	1.07 (0.83, 1.36)
Marital Status
Divorced/Separated/Never married vs Couple	0.59 (0.53, 0.66)	0.93 (0.81, 1.05)	_
Widowed vs Couple	0.58 (0.51, 0.66)	0.87 (0.75, 1.01)
Education
High school (HS) graduate vs <HS	1.63 (1.40, 1.90)	1.11 (0.93, 1.31)	1.13 (0.96, 1.34)
Some college/Technical vs <HS	2.50 (2.14, 2.92)	1.33 (1.11, 1.59)	1.36 (1.14, 1.61)
College graduate vs <HS	5.01 (4.25, 5.90)	1.85 (1.53, 2.24)	1.91 (1.58, 2.31)
Income ($)
15,000–34,999 vs <15,000	1.33 (1.15, 1.54)	1.07 (0.92, 1.25)	1.10 (0.94, 1.28)
35,000–49,999 vs <15,000	2.13 (1.81, 2.51)	1.29 (1.06, 1.56)	1.35 (1.12, 1.64)
≥50,000 vs <15,000	4.49 (3.86, 5.22)	2.17 (1.77, 2.65)	2.33 (1.93, 2.82)
Employment
Homemaker/Student/Retired vs Employed	0.85 (0.77, 0.95)	1.19 (1.04, 1.38)	1.18 (1.05, 1.33)
Not employed/Unable to work vs Employed	0.42 (0.37, 0.48)	0.99 (0.84, 1.15)	0.97 (0.83, 1.14)
Healthcare coverage†
Yes vs No	2.85 (2.34, 3.48)	1.69 (1.36, 2.12)	1.70 (1.36, 2.12)
Personal doctor╪
Yes vs No	2.11 (1.74, 2.55)	1.42 (1.16, 1.75)	1.42 (1.16, 1.74)
Medical cost§
Yes vs No	0.45 (0.40, 0.52)	0.69 (0.59, 0.81)	0.69 (0.59, 0.80)
Self-reported general health
Good/Better vs Fair/Poor	2.02 (1.84, 2.22)	1.19 (1.07, 1.33)	1.23 (1.10, 1.36)
Number of permanent teeth removed
1–5 vs None	0.82 (0.73, 0.93)	1.03 (0.91, 1.17)	1.02 (0.90, 1.16)
6+ vs None	0.55 (0.49, 0.63)	0.84 (0.73, 0.96)	0.82 (0.72, 0.94)
All vs None	0.17 (0.15, 0.20)	0.27 (0.23, 0.32)	0.26 (0.22, 0.31)
Smoking statusǁ
Current vs Never	0.46 (0.40, 0.53)	0.69 (0.59, 0.82)	0.69 (0.59, 0.81)
Former vs Never	0.81 (0.73, 0.89)	0.92 (0.83, 1.03)	0.92 (0.83, 1.03)
Alcohol intake in past 30 days
1 drink/day vs None	1.80 (1.60, 2.04)	1.13 (0.99, 1.30)	_
2+ drinks/day vs None	1.35 (1.18, 1.53)	0.96 (0.84, 1.11)
Poor mental health in past 30 days
Yes vs No	0.70 (0.63, 0.76)	0.93 (0.83, 1.04)	_
Poor physical health in past 30 days
Yes vs No	0.65 (0.59, 0.71)	0.97 (0.87, 1.08)	_
Exercise in past 30 days¶
Yes vs No	1.76 (1.61, 1.94)	1.27 (1.14, 1.42)	1.28 (1.15, 1.42)
Body Mass Index (BMI) #
Underweight/Normal weight vs Obese	1.12 (0.97, 1.28)	1.16 (0.99, 1.35)	1.17 (1.00, 1.36)
Overweight vs Obese	1.15 (1.04, 1.28)	1.14 (1.02, 1.27)	1.14 (1.02, 1.27)
Residence
Urban vs Rural	1.49 (1.30, 1.70)	1.20 (1.04, 1.37)	1.17 (1.01, 1.35)

*OR and 95% CI are adjusted for all the variables listed in the column, and the complex sampling design.

†Healthcare coverage: Has any kind of health care coverage, including health insurance, prepaid plans such as health maintenance organization (HMO), or government plans such as Medicare, or Indian Health Service.

╪Personal doctor: Has a personal doctor or health care provider.

§Medical cost: Could not see a doctor because of cost.

ǁSmoking status: Current: Smokes every day or some days, Former: Smoked before, Never: Never smoked.

¶Exercise: Participated in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise in the past 30 days.

#BMI; Underweight/Normal weight: BMI<25, Overweight: 25≤BMI <30, Obese: BMI≥30.

Participants with good or better general health compared to those with fair or poor health were also more compliant (AOR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.10–1.36). Fully edentulous participants had the lowest (27%) compliance compared to dentate participants (55% or higher; AOR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.22–0.31 comparing to fully dentate). Individuals who had ever smoked (i.e., current or former smokers) had lower crude and adjusted odds of compliance compared to never smokers (current: AOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59–0.81; former: AOR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83–1.03).

Participants with the highest income or education had the highest crude and adjusted odds (AOR>1.9) of reporting a dental visit within the past year compared to their counterparts (Table 2). A lower proportion of participants who reported no personal doctor (43% vs. 61%), no healthcare coverage (36% vs. 61%) or medical cost as a barrier to seeing a doctor (43% vs. 62%) were compliant compared to those with better access to medical care. Lack of healthcare coverage was a particularly strong indicator of low compliance with dental care visits, especially among rural (24% compliance) vs. urban residents (37%), even after adjusting for other factors (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Dental visit compliance by residential status.

Odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for dental visit compliance by urban and rural residence status adjusted for sex, age, BMI, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, employment, smoking status, self-reported general health, healthcare coverage, having a personal doctor, perceiving medical cost as a barrier, exercise in the past 30 days, average alcohol intake in the past 30 days, poor mental or physical health in the past 30 days, annual household income, and number of permanent teeth removed (n = 40,585; N = 19,281,982). Only variables with a significant association for either residential status are shown. Full details are available in the supplemental table.

Overall, urban participants had higher adjusted odds of compliance compared to their Rural counterparts (AOR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.01–1.35), with some notable differences (Fig 2 and S1 Table). Specifically, among urban participants, obesity was negatively associated with dental care utilization (59% of obese individuals had a dental visit within the past year vs. 62% of other urban residents), whereas a higher percentage (53%) of obese rural residents had a dental visit compared to other rural subgroups (43% of normal/underweight and 49% of overweight participants).

Individuals living as a couple (married or living together as married) in either urban or rural areas were more compliant than other groups (Fig 2). The least compliant groups were widows in urban areas (52% compliance) and singles (divorced, separated, or never married) in rural areas (38%).

Urban residents with higher income also had higher adjusted odds of compliance, whereas this association was weaker and not significant in the rural stratum. Specifically, urban participants in the highest income bracket had 2.27 times (95% CI = 1.83–2.82) higher adjusted odds of compliance vs. those in the lowest income bracket.

Discussion

In 2018, 60% of US adult diabetic participants reported at least one dental visit for any reason within the past year. Although our estimate is limited to adults only, the percentage is very close to the Healthy People 2020 target (61.2%) for all diabetic individuals aged 2 years or older [13]. However, our figure is lower than that previously reported for the adult US population in 2011–2014 (66%) and 2014 (68%) [22,23]. This finding is not unexpected, as prior studies have also reported lower compliance among diabetic individuals compared to the general population [24].

Compliance with annual dental visits was higher among diabetic females after adjusting for other factors. This finding is consistent with prior reports of higher female compliance in the general US population [23]. Diabetic individuals of different age, racial and ethnic groups reported similar dental compliance after adjusting for other variables. It appears that differences among these groups are less pronounced among diabetics compared to the general population [23]. These findings differ from those of prior studies in which compliance was 9–22% lower among Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic adults with diabetes, and it was also lower among non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White diabetic individuals [17,24,25].

Overall, diabetic individuals with better general health and urban residents had higher adjusted odds of compliance (Table 2). Higher dental visits compliance among urban residents has also been reported for the general US population [19].

Edentulous participants were less compliant compared to dentate participants. A possible reason is that edentulous individuals may be less aware of the need to continue oral check-ups ever after all the teeth have been removed. Lack of general awareness among diabetic patients regarding increased susceptibility to oral diseases and their impact on overall health conditions was noted in a recent study [26].

Diabetic individuals with a lifetime history of smoking had lower crude and adjusted odds of dental compliance compared to never smokers, following a similar pattern as that previously reported for the general population [23]. This population subgroup may require targeted preventive efforts because smoking is also a risk factor for poorer dental outcomes [27].

Reduced access to medical care (e.g., having no personal doctor, or perceiving medical cost as a barrier) was associated with lower compliance among both rural and urban residents. Prior studies have found that income is associated with higher dental visit compliance among diabetic dentate adults [18]. We observed a similar trend among urban residents. However, income was not linked to compliance in rural populations after adjusting for other factors. Having lower education or no health insurance coverage were associated with lower odds of dental compliance, as expected based on prior studies of both the diabetic and the general population [18,23]. Notably, the links between dental visits compliance and education or health insurance were more pronounced among rural diabetic residents. These findings suggest the need for more robust prevention efforts in rural areas, such as enhanced dental public health education.

Urban widows and single rural participants were less compliant than individuals living as a couple (married or living as married; Fig 2). A stronger social structure may contribute to improved knowledge, awareness, and encouragement toward better dental compliance. Thus, a possible explanation for this finding is that single individuals may be less socially active in rural vs. urban environments, whereas widows may have less family support in urban vs. rural environments.

The relationship between obesity and compliance differed by residence status, with urban obese residents being less compliant and rural obese residents more compliant than non-obese individuals after adjusting for other factors (Fig 2). Individuals with lower BMI tend to have lower dental disease burden [28]. Compliance with dental visits was lowest among non-obese rural residents, which suggests that this subgroup may not adequately seek preventive dental care. More in-depth studies are needed to investigate the opposite direction of association seen in rural vs. urban participants.

A limitation of this study was the use of self-reports collected at one time point. There was also no information indicating whether dental visits were for preventive care, emergencies or planned dental treatment. Thus, we expect the percentage of annual preventive dental visits to be even lower than our reported estimate. Some survey questions were more closely related to medical care (such as health insurance coverage or healthcare cost and barriers), although still applicable to dental care. Strengths of this study were the use of standardized data collection procedures and the large, nationally representative sample of US adults, although certain subgroups were not represented (e.g., institutionalized individuals, military, and pregnant women).

Conclusions

Avoidance of oral infections through optimal dental care and routine dental visits is paramount to reaching and maintaining good glycemic control and minimizing diabetic complications. However, a high percentage (40%) of US adult diabetic individuals reported no dental visits within the past year. This estimate is substantially higher than the percentage of diabetic individuals not following other yearly preventive care practices, such as annual eye exams (30%) or annual cholesterol checks (7%) [29].

Despite the bidirectional relationship between oral health and diabetes, collaboration between the medical and dental professions is limited. There is a need to integrate dental and medical care to facilitate cross-talks among different health professionals, so that educational preventive messages are reinforced at every healthcare visit [30]. Prior studies have shown that compliance with preventive dental visits by diabetic patients is reinforced through advisement of health care professionals [16]. The integration of dental and medical messages may be facilitated by the explicit inclusion of preventive dental care practices in the ADA’s diabetes care practice guidelines.

Overall, the study findings suggest additional potential areas for improvement, such as improved public health educational messages that encourage preventive dental visits among individuals who smoke, are edentulous or have no healthcare coverage. Public health interventions and messages may need to be customized to reach different rural and urban subgroups that underutilize dental services.

Dental visit compliance by urban and rural participants’ characteristics.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-04886

US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Denis Bourgeois

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

This work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (# 5U54GM115458).

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review Question 1: The author uses the term annual dental "visit" when it should state annual dental "examination" . The Healthy People 2020 Survey uses "annual dental examination" as language for both target and target setting method. The term "visit " is unclear as it could include planned or emergency dental treatment. Furthermore, the CDC Diabetes Care Schedule's states dental exam and cleaning at least once per year, and the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (2020) state annual dental visit, but in the context of preventive care services (pp 47-48).

The author notes this limitation in the discussion section of the study, "There was also no information indicating whether dental visits were for preventive care, emergencies, or planned dental treatment." The author confuses the reader by using the word "visit" and not "examination" throughout the paper, making the discussion unclear and weakens the study's conclusions.

Revisiting to the CDC and ADA literature cited in the study and using the correct language throughout the paper may make the submission acceptable for publication. Recommendation: Major Revision

Reviewer #2: The methodology and statistical analysis are rigorous.

Authors must put the website address on which the BRFSS database is accessible.

The authors need to elaborate on the procedure of matching the sample to the US population.

The BMI must be defined.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Martin R Gillis, DDS

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Apr 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript “PONE-D-21-04886; US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization”. We appreciate the reviewers’ insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. We have addressed all the comments and made the suggested changes (tracked) in the manuscript. We also revised our funding statement to indicate that “This work was partially supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences (# 5U54GM115458). There was no additional external funding received for this study.” We believe that the paper is improved as a result of the revisions. We hope that our edits to the paper and the responses below satisfactorily address all the critiques.

Reviewer #1:

The author uses the term annual dental "visit" when it should state annual dental "examination" . The Healthy People 2020 Survey uses "annual dental examination" as language for both target and target setting method. The term "visit " is unclear as it could include planned or emergency dental treatment. Furthermore, the CDC Diabetes Care Schedule's states dental exam and cleaning at least once per year, and the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (2020) state annual dental visit, but in the context of preventive care services (pp 47-48). The author notes this limitation in the discussion section of the study, "There was also no information indicating whether dental visits were for preventive care, emergencies, or planned dental treatment." The author confuses the reader by using the word "visit" and not "examination" throughout the paper, making the discussion unclear and weakens the study's conclusions. Revisiting to the CDC and ADA literature cited in the study and using the correct language throughout the paper may make the submission acceptable for publication.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the good points. We have further clarified throughout the manuscript whether dental visits were for any reason or for preventive examinations.

Reviewer #2:

The methodology and statistical analysis are rigorous. Authors must put the website address on which the BRFSS database is accessible. The authors need to elaborate on the procedure of matching the sample to the US population. The BMI must be defined.

Response: We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. We have added the website information to access the BRFSS database, defined the BMI abbreviation, and added more details to the methods section to elaborate on the procedure of matching the sample to the US population.

21 Apr 2021

US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization

PONE-D-21-04886R1

Dear Dr. Yu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Denis Bourgeois

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

27 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-04886R1

US adults with diabetes mellitus: Variability in oral healthcare utilization

Dear Dr. Yu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Denis Bourgeois

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE