| Literature DB >> 34350311 |
Caio L B Reis1, Mariane C F Barbosa2, Suelyn Henklein3, Isabela R Madalena1, Daniela C de Lima4, Maria A H M Oliveira5, Erika C Küchler1, Daniela S B de Oliveira4.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the association between nutritional status with delayed tooth eruption (DTE). Oral examination was performed in schoolchildren (8-11 years old), and DTE was defined by absence of dental gingival emergence or when primary tooth was still present in the oral cavity after the expected time. BMI z-score of each child were collected and nutritional status was defined. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression adjusted by age and gender were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) were calculated. The established alpha was 5%. Among 353 included children, 247 were classified as eutrophic, 16 as underweight, 64 as overweight, and 26 as obese. Underweight was associated as a risk factor to DTE (P = .014; OR = 3.5; 95% CI = 1.3-9.8), and underweight girls had more chance to present DTE than eutrophic girls (P = .048; OR = 4.4; 95% CI = 1.1-17.2) in chi square test. In logistic regression, underweight was associated as a risk factor to DTE (OR = 4.21; CI 95% = 1.42-12.43; P = .009). Underweight children have a higher risk of DTE in permanents.Entities:
Keywords: OMS; delayed tooth eruption; nutritional status; tooth eruption
Year: 2021 PMID: 34350311 PMCID: PMC8295946 DOI: 10.1177/2333794X211034088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Pediatr Health ISSN: 2333-794X
Sample Characteristics According to the Groups.
| Variables | No DTE | DTE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (SD) | 8.88 (0.88) | 8.88 (0.89) | .958 |
| Gender n (%)
| |||
| Male | 103 (60.6) | 67 (39.4) |
|
| Female | 133 (72.7) | 50 (27.3) | |
Bold forms means statistical significance difference.
t-test was used.
Chi-square was used.
Nutritional Status Distribution Among the Groups.
| Nutritional status | No DTE | DTE |
| OR (CI 95%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sample | ||||
| Eutrophic (normal weight) | 167 (67.6) | 80 (32.4) | Reference | |
| Underweight | 6 (37.5) | 10 (62.5) |
|
|
| Overweight | 42 (67.6) | 22 (34.4) | .879 | 1.1 (0.6-1.9) |
| Obese | 21 (80.8) | 5 (19.2) | .168 | 0.5 (0.2-1.3) |
| Males | ||||
| Eutrophic (normal weight) | 71 (61.2) | 45 (38.8) | Reference | |
| Underweight | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) | .266 | 2.6 (0.6-10.2) |
| Overweight | 15 (51.7) | 14 (48.3) | .401 | 1.4(0.6-1.2) |
| Obese | 14 (82.4) | 3 (17.6) | .088 | 0.3 (0.1- 1.1) |
| Females | ||||
| Eutrophic (normal weight) | 93 (72.7) | 35 (27.4) | Reference | |
| Underweight | 3 (37.5) | 5 (62.5) |
|
|
| Overweight | 27 (77.1) | 8 (22.9) | .669 | 0.7 (0.6-1.9) |
| Obese | 7 (77.8) | 2 (22.2) | .999 | 0.7 (0.1-3.7) |
Chi-square was used. Bold forms means statistical significance difference.
Figure 1.Number of delayed teeth according to the group.
Binary Logistic Regression.
| Outcome |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutritional status | ||||
| Reference | Assessed variable | |||
| Eutrophic (normal weight) | Underweight | 4.21 | 1.42-12.43 |
|
| Overweight | 1.17 | 0.65-2.12 | .592 | |
| Obese | 0.40 | 0.14-1.14 | .087 | |
The model was adjusted by gender and age in months. Bold forms mean statistical significance difference.