Table 2.
|
Caries experience DMFT/dmft>0 |
OHI-S -poor OHI |
TDI - Trauma present |
C-OIDP impact >0 (Age 11–13) |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) |
OR (95% CI) |
OR (95% CI) |
OR (95% CI) |
||
Unadjusted | Adjusted # | Unadjusted | Unadjusted | Unadjusted | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
Under 12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
12 and above |
0.1 (0.0–0.3) |
0.07 (0.0–0.3) |
0.9 (0.4–2.4) |
1.8 (0.6–5.5) |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Girls |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Boys |
0.7 (0.3–1.8) |
1.1 (0.2–5.4) |
0.9 (0.3–2.4) |
0.8 (0.2–2.8) |
0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
Residence |
|
|
|
|
|
Non boarders |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Boarders |
0.9 (0.4–2.1) |
0.8 (0.2–3.4) |
1.0 (0.4–2.6) |
0.5 (0.2–1.5) |
1.1 (1.0–1.4) |
Mother education |
|
|
|
|
|
Not educated |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Educated |
0.5 (0.2–1.3) |
0.6 (0.2–2.6) |
0.6 (0.2–2.0) |
2.2 (0.4–10.7) |
0.4 (0.0–6.7) |
Father education |
|
|
|
|
|
Not educated |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Educated |
0.8 (0.3–2.5) |
1.8 (0.3–9.1) |
0.8 (0.2–2.6) |
0.4 (0.1–1.5) |
0.3 (0.0–5.6) |
Mother occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
Not working |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Working |
0.5 (0.2–1.1) |
0.7 (0.2–2.4) |
0.8 (0.3–2.0) |
1.1 (0.3–3.6) |
0.8 (0.7–1.1) |
Father occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
Not working |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Working |
0.8 (0.3–2.1) |
0.8 (0.2–3.3) |
2.2 (0.8–6.5) |
0.5(0.2–1.8) |
0.2 (0.0–3.5) |
Oral health |
|
|
|
|
|
Caries experience |
|
|
|
|
|
No |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Yes |
|
|
2.0 (0.8–5.2) |
0.3 (0.1–1.2) |
1.3 (0.9–1.7) |
OHI-S |
|
|
|
|
|
Good |
1 |
1 |
- |
1 |
1 |
Poor |
2.0 (0.8–5.2) |
1.9 (0.6–6.7) |
|
0.6 (0.2–1.7) |
1.1 (1.0–1.3) |
TDI |
|
|
|
|
|
No trauma |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
1 |
Present |
0.3 (0.1–1.2) |
0.8 (0.2–4.0) |
0.6 (0.8–1.7) |
|
1.0 (0.8–1.0) |
Visual impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
Complete (CVI) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4.3 (1.1–16.5)* |
1.3 (0.4–5.0) |
Partial (PVI) | 3.3 (1.4–8.1)* | 6.3 (1.7–22.7)* | 3.0 (1.1–8.2)* | 1 | 1 |
Binary logistic regression model for caries, adjusting for all variables illustrated above.
*p < 0.01.
# Logistic regression model: p = 0.001, chi square = 30.4, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.43.