| Literature DB >> 35948932 |
Cilio Antonio Ribeiro Junior1, Mario Vianna Vettore2, Janete Maria Rebelo Vieira1, Ana Paula Corrêa de Queiroz Herkrath1, Adriana Corrêa de Queiroz Herkrath1, Juliana Vianna Pereira1, Fernando José Herkrath3, Maria Augusta Bessa Rebelo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the role of dental pain, sense of coherence (SOC) and social support on the relationship between dental caries and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in children aged 12 years.Entities:
Keywords: Dental caries; Dental pain; Quality of life; Sense of coherence; Social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35948932 PMCID: PMC9364536 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02372-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 3.747
Fig. 1Theoretical model adapted from Wilson and Cleary [10]
Sociodemographic characteristics, dental caries measures, symptom status, psychosocial factors and OHRQoL of the studied sample (n = 400)
| Variables | N [%(95% CI)]/mean (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Sex, N (%) | |
| Female | 231 [57.8 (52.8–62.5)] |
| Male | 169 [(42.2 (7.5–47.2)] |
| Parents/guardians years of schooling, N (%) | |
| 1–7 years | 62 [15.5 (12.3–19.4)] |
| 8–11 years | 290 [72.5 (67.9–76.7)] |
| ≥ 12 years | 48 [12.0 (9.2–15.6)] |
| Family income, N (%) | |
| Up to ½ BMWA | 103 [25.8 (21.7–30.3)] |
| ½ to 1 BMW | 161 [40.2 (35.5–45.2)] |
| > 1 BMW | 136 [34.0 (29.5–38.8)] |
| Decayed teeth, mean (SD) | 0.9 (0.7–1.0) |
| PUFA/pufa score, mean (SD) | 0.3 (0.2–0.4) |
| Dental pain, N (%) | |
| Yes | 144 [36.0 (31.4–40.8)] |
| No | 256 [64.0 (59.2–68.6)] |
| Sense of coherence, mean (SD) | 45.7 (45.0–46.3) |
| Social support (SSA), mean (SD) | |
| Total score | 141.0 (17.6) |
| Friends | 33.0 (5.7) |
| Family | 42.0 (5.7) |
| Teachers | 29.6 (5.4) |
| Others | 36.5 (5.7) |
| CPQ11-14 | |
| Total score, mean (SD) | 16.1 (15.3–17.0) |
| Oral symptoms, mean (SD) | 4.5 (4.3–4.8) |
| Emotional state, mean (SD) | 3.4 (3.2–3.7) |
| Functional limitations, mean (SD) | 4.5 (4.3–4.8) |
| Social well-being, mean (SD) | 3.7 (3.4–4.0) |
Fig. 2Confirmatory factor analysis of the 2-factor 8 items (measurement model) obtained through bootstrap (standard error/bias-corrected 95% CI). **P < 0.01
Fit indices for the measurement and structural models
| Model | χ2/df | GFI | CFI | SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement model | 1.696 | 0.983 | 0.988 | 0.0352 | 0.042 |
| Structural model | 1.935 | 0.963 | 0.961 | 0.0409 | 0.048 |
χ2 (d.f) (P), chi-square and degrees of freedom; GFI, goodness-of-fit-statistics; CFI, comparative fit index; SRMR, standardised root-mean-squared residual; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation
Fig. 3Full model of associations between decayed teeth, clinical consequence of untreated caries, dental pain, SOC, social support and OHRQoL. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. The model was adjusted for sex and monthly family income. Direct effects are represented through solid lines, and indirect effects are indicated by dashed lines
Indirect effects between number of decayed teeth and OHRQoL
| Decayed teeth → clinical consequences of untreated caries → OHRQoL = 0.548 × 0.118 = 0.065 |
| Decayed teeth → clinical consequences of untreated caries → dental pain → OHRQoL = 0.548 × 0.166 × 0.320 = 0.029 |
| Decayed teeth → clinical consequences of untreated caries → SOC → OHRQoL = 0.548 × − 0.011 × − 0.232 = 0.001 |
| Decayed teeth → clinical consequences of untreated caries → social support → OHRQoL = 0.548 × 0.056 × − 0.196 = − 0.006 |
| Decayed teeth → dental pain → OHRQoL = 0.244 × 0.320 = 0.078 |
| Decayed teeth → SOC → OHRQoL = − 0.012 × − 0.242 = 0.002 |
| Decayed teeth → Social support → OHRQoL = − 0.088 × − 0.196 = 0.017 |
Multivariable negative binominal regression models on the relationship of number of decayed teeth and clinical consequences of dental caries with OHRQoL
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of decayed teeth | 0.06 (0.03/0.09)** | 0.05 (0.02/0.08)** | 0.13 (− 0.09/0.35) |
| SOC | − 0.03 (− 0.04/− 0.02)** | − 0.03 (− 0.03/− 0.02)** | − 0.03 (− 0.03/− 0.02)** |
| Number of decayed teeth × SOC | − 0.01 (− 0.01/0.00) | ||
| ∆Dif† = 0.222; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
| Number of decayed teeth | 0.061 (0.03/0.09)** | 0.05 (0.02/0.09)** | 0.03 (− 0.23/0.24) |
| Social support | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** |
| Number of decayed teeth × social support | 0.00 (− 0.00/0.00) | ||
| ∆ Dif† = 0.096; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
| Number of decayed teeth | 0.06 (0.03/0.09)** | 0.02 (− 0.01/0.05) | 0.04 (0.00/0.09)* |
| Dental pain | 0.14 (0.10/0.18)** | 0.13 (0.09/0.17)** | 0.16 (0.11/0.21)** |
| Number of decayed teeth × dental pain | − 0.02 (− 0.04/0.00) | ||
| ∆ Dif† = 1.425; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries | 0.12 (0.05/0.20)** | 0.11 (0.05/0.18)** | 0.11 (− 0.28/0.51) |
| SOC | − 0.03 (− 0.04/− 0.02)** | − 0.03 (− 0.03/− 0.02)** | − 0.03 (− 0.04/− 0.02)** |
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries × SOC | − 0.00 (− 0.01/0.01) | ||
| ∆ Dif = 0.001; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries | 0.12 (0.05/0.20)** | 0.13 (0.06/0.20)** | − 0.18 (− 0.67/0.32) |
| Social support | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** | − 0.01 (− 0.01/− 0.01)** |
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries × social support | 0.00 (− 0.00/0.01) | ||
| ∆ Dif = 0.007; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries | 0.12 (0.05/0.20)** | 0.05 (− 0.02/0.12) | 0.09 (− 0.00/0.18) |
| Dental pain | 0.14 (0.10/0.18)** | 0.13 (0.09/0.17)** | 0.14 (0.10/0.18)** |
| Clinical consequences of untreated caries × dental pain | − 0.02 (− 0.05/0.01) | ||
| ∆Dif† = 0.811; df = 4 (χ2, | |||
Model 1: unadjusted
Model 2: adjusted for dental caries, sex, monthly family income, SOC, social support and dental pain
Model 3: model 2 + interaction term (dental caries × SOC, dental caries × social support and dental caries × dental pain)
*P < 0.05 and **P ≤ 0.001 are considered significant
†Interaction was assessed through comparison likelihood ratio between models 2 and 3