Skip to main content

Table 6 Proportion of individuals according to dentition status and different dental prosthesis used. 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

Dentition status

Use of dental prosthesis

No use

Use of upper or lower FDPa

Use of upper or lower RDPa

 

n

% (CI)b

n

% (CI)b

n

% (CI)b

Shortened Dental Arch

  > 5 OUs, no dental prosthesis

3471

100.0

0

0

0

0

  > 5 OUs, with dental prosthesis

0

0

91

52.9 (39.3, 66.1)

46

47.2 (33.9, 60.8

 3–5 OUs, no dental prosthesis (SDA)

487

100.0

0

0

0

0

  < 3 OUs, no dental prosthesis

197

100.0

0

0

0

0

  ≤ 5 OUs, with dental prosthesis

0

0

29

28.7 (17.2, 43.7)

88

71.4 (56.3,82.8)

 No intact anterior region

537

37.7(33.6,42.0)

77

4.1 (2.7, 6.0)

730

58.2 (53.4,63.0)

Hierarchical Dental Functional Classification

 Functional dentition, no dental prosthesis

2805

100.0

0

0

0

0

 Functional dentition, with dental prosthesis

0

0

73

59.2 (41.4,74.9)

22

40.8 (25.1, 58.6)

 No functional dentition, no dental prosthesis

1887

79.8(77.7,81.7)

0

0

0

0

 No functional dentition, with dental prosthesis

0

0

124

9.8 (6.9, 13.8)

842

90.2 (86.2, 93.1)

Who criteria for functional dentition

  > 21 teeth, no dental prosthesis

4452

100.0

0

0

0

0

  > 21 teeth, with dental prosthesis

0

0

172

23.9 (18.3,30.6)

359

76.0 (69.4, 81.7)

  < 21 teeth, no dental prosthesis

240

100.0

0

0

0

0

  < 21 teeth, with dental prosthesis

0

0

25

4.2 (2.3,7.6)

505

95.8 (92.4,97.7)

  1. aFDP Fixed Dental Prosthesis, RDP Removable Partial Dental Prosthesis. b 95% CI (95% confidence. Estimates considered weighting and complex sampling design intervals)