Table 3.

Number (%) of schoolchildren who reported the state of teeth to be bad by socio-behavioural factors, non-clinical and clinical oral health indicators. Cross-tabulation analysis (chi-square) and multiple logistic regression with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

	Unadjusted	Adjusted
Independent variables	Bad state of teeth n (%)	OR	95% CI	R2
Step 1
Girls	73 (20)	1
Boys	121 (25)	1.1	0.8–1.6
Rural	131 (21)*	1
Urban	63 (28)	1.3	0.9–2.0
Socio-economic status – Poor	52 (25)	1
Socio-economic status – Middle class	133 (23)	0.8	0.5–1.2
Socio-economic status – High class	9 (22.5)	0.3	0.4–2.4
School performance – Good	130 (19)*	1
School performance – Poor	64 (41)	2.5	1.6–3.8	0.07
Step 2
Bleeding gums – No	135 (21)*	1
Bleeding gums – Yes	59 (29)	1.1	0.7–1.7
Bad breath – No	87 (16)*	1
Bad breath – Yes	107 (37)	2.4	1.7–3.5
Toothache – No	55 (21)
Toothache – Yes	139 (24)
Food impaction – No	34 (14)*	1
Food impaction – Yes	160 (27)	1.7	1.1–2.7
Dental visits – Never	97 (19)*	1
Dental visits – Yes	97 (29)	1.6	1.1–2.3
Oral health knowledge – Good	102 (21)
Oral health knowledge – Poor	90 (26)
Satisfied with appearance of teeth	68 (13)*	1
Dissatisfied with appearance of teeth	126 (40)	4.2	2.9–6.0	0.26
Step 3
DMFT = 0	120 (20)*	1
DMFT > 0	74 (32)	1.7	1.1–2.5
Oral hygiene – Good	147 (22)*	1
Oral hygiene – Fair	47 (30)	1.4	0.9–2.3
Anterior trauma – no	182 (23)
Anterior trauma – yes	12 (24)			0.27

* p < 0.05

All variables in Step 1 and other statistically significant bivariate variables were entered into the multiple logistic regression analysis