Skip to main content

Table 5 Adjusted association of dentition status with OIDP prevalence and extent in adults. State of São Paulo, Brazil, 2015

From: Is reduced dentition with and without dental prosthesis associated with oral health-related quality of life? A cross-sectional study

  OIDP prevalence OIDP Extent
Unadjusted Prevalence Ratioa Adjusted Prevalence Ratioa Unadjusted Count Ratio Adjusted Count Ratio
Shortened Dental Arch
  > 5 OUs, no dental prosthesis 1 1 1 1
  > 5 OUs, with dental prosthesis 0.96 (0.72,1.28) 0.91 (0.68,1.22) 1.12 (0.79,1.60) 1.17 (0.82,1.67)
 3,5 OUs, no dental prosthesis (SDA) 1.20***(1.05,1.37) 1.02 (0.91,1.13) 1.58* (1.33,1.87) 1.26**(1.09,1.46)
  < 3 OUs, no dental prosthesis 1.55*** (1.36,1.76) 1.16*(1.01,1.33) 2.17***(1.67,2.82) 1.77**(1.21,2.59)
  ≤ 5 OUs, with dental prosthesis 1.56*** (1.37,1.78) 1.26***(1.12,1.43) 2.03***(1.47,2.80) 1.64***(1.24,2.18)
 Not intact anterior region 1.32*** (1.22,1.43) 1.09*(1.00,1.18) 1.96***(1.72,2.23) 1.53***(1.34,1.75)
Hierarchical Dental Functional Classification
 Functional dentition, no dental prosthesis 1 1 1 1
 Functional dentition, with dental prosthesis 0.89 (0.61,1.30) 0.92 (0.68,1.24) 1.06 (0.69,1.63) 1.26 (0.78,2.03)
 No functional dentition, no dental prosthesis 1.38*** (1.25,1.51) 1.11*(1.01,1.22) 1.72***(1.48,1.98) 1.29***(1.13,1.48)
 No functional dentition, with dental prosthesis 1.34*** (1.22,1.48) 1.19***(1.10,1.29) 2.04***(1.73,2.41) 1.54***(1.35,1.74)
WHO criteria for functional dentition
  > 21 teeth, no dental prosthesis 1 1 1 1
  > 21 teeth, with dental prosthesis 1.27*** (1.13,1.44) 1.13*(1.01,1.27) 1.61***(1.36,1.90) 1.41***(1.22,1.63)
  < 21 teeth, no dental prosthesis 1.37*** (1.20,1.57) 1.07 (0.95,1.21) 1.99***(1.66,2.38) 1.62**(1.19,2.20)
  < 21 teeth, with dental prosthesis 1.13 (0.95,1.34) 0.95 (0.82,1.09) 1.61**(1.21,2.13) 1.38***(1.16,1.63)
  1. aPrevalence ratio and count ratio (95% confidence intervals). Estimates considered weighting and complex sampling design. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Associations were adjusted for years of study and income. Additionally, the final model was adjusted for covariates (sex, skin color, time since last dentist visit, prevalence of untreated caries, safe feeling, self-perception of need of dental treatment, dental prosthesis and dental pain) significantly associated with the outcome (p < 0.05)