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)