Table 5.

Regression coefficients for dentist/patient characteristics and practice patterns associated with the child-adult prevention index.

Predictor	β (SE)	P value
Sealants [F (8,432) = 10.384, p<.001, R² = 10.4]
Percentage of patients with dental insurance	2.645 (.572)	< .001
Days wait for examination appointment	−.378 (.181)	.044
In-office fluoride [F (9,421) = 9.458, p<.001,R² = 13.9]
Gender	−12.289 (4.681)	.009
Percentage of patients with dental insurance	2.794 (1.371)	.042
Days wait for examination appointment	−.422 (.108)	<.001
Percentage of time spent on non-implant restorations	1.821 (.899)	.043
Caries risk assessment is performed	−15.824 (2.820)	<.001
Give individualized caries prevention	−.164 (.050)	.001
Clinical replacement scenario	2.280 (.873)	.009
Clinical new restoration scenario	2.267 (1.128)	.045
Prescription fluoride [F (4,439) = 7.787, p<.001,R² = 8.8]
Gender	−7.964 (2.500)	.002
Percentage of patients who self-pay	−.818 (.407)	.045
Chlorhexidine [F (7,431) = 11.000, p<.001, R² = 12.1]
Gender	−4.725 (1.809)	.009
Percentage of patients who self-pay	−.706 (.296)	.018
Percent age of time spent on non-implant restorations	1.744 (.351)	.001
Caries risk assessment is performed	3.647 (1.056)	.001

Large positive values for thechild-adult prevention index (the dependent variable) indicates a higher percentage of children receive that preventive agent compared to adults.

β should be interpreted to represent the increase in percentage of the index when the predictor variable is increased 1 unit (e.g., one day additional wait time for an examination appointment).

Dichotomous variables were coded as follows: Gender (male=1, female=2), Caries risk assessment (performed =1, not performed=2), Replacement scenario (not replace=1, replace=2), Coronal caries scenario (not restore=1, restore=2).