Table 2.
Strata | n | Caries prevalence | DMFS | DMFT | SiC index | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percent | p-valuec | Mean | SE | p-valued | Mean | SE | p-valued | Mean | SE | p-valued | ||
Gender | ||||||||||||
Female | 842 | 71 | 0.29 | 4.2 | 0.25 | <0.001 | 2.6 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 5.8 | 0.21 | 0.001 |
Male | 745 | 68 | 3.5 | 0.23 | 2.4 | 0.14 | 5.0 | 0.13 | ||||
School type | ||||||||||||
Rural public | 597 | 72 | 0.03 | 4.2 | 0.33 | <0.001 | 2.7 | 0.17 | <0.001 | 5.5 | 0.13 | <0.001 |
Urban public | 629 | 72 | 0.001 | 4.2 | 0.29 | <0.001 | 2.7 | 0.19 | <0.001 | 5.7 | 0.22 | <0.001 |
Private | 361 | 55 | REF | 2.5 | 0.30 | REF | 1.7 | 0.16 | REF | 3.9 | 0.21 | REF |
Gender and school type | ||||||||||||
Female, rural public | 322 | 73 | <0.01 | 4.5 | 0.40 | <0.001 | 2.8 | 0.20 | <0.001 | 5.5 | 0.18 | <0.001 |
Male, rural public | 275 | 71 | 0.02 | 4.0 | 0.37 | <0.001 | 2.6 | 0.20 | <0.001 | 5.6 | 0.22 | <0.001 |
Female, urban public | 338 | 73 | <0.001 | 4.4 | 0.40 | <0.001 | 2.8 | 0.23 | <0.001 | 6.1 | 0.40 | <0.001 |
Male, urban public | 291 | 71 | <0.01 | 3.9 | 0.34 | <0.001 | 2.6 | 0.22 | <0.001 | 5.4 | 0.19 | <0.001 |
Female, private | 182 | 60 | 0.06 | 2.9 | 0.44 | <0.001 | 1.9 | 0.25 | <0.001 | 4.2 | 0.36 | <0.01 |
Males, private | 179 | 50 | REF | 2.0 | 0.29 | REF | 1.4 | 0.17 | REF | 2.8 | 0.27 | REF |
aUnadjusted caries prevalence, DMFS, DMFT and SiC index estimates are weighted using normalized inverse probability weights
bDefined by gender, school type (3 groups) and the combination of school type and gender
c p-values were obtained from multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusting for gender, school type (3 groups) and the 11 health reform regions
d p-values were obtained from multivariable Poisson regression analysis, adjusting for gender, school type (3 groups) and the 11 health reform regions