Table 1.
Dental caries summary measures in Calgary and Edmonton, 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, Grade 2 students. Weighted estimates. Full sample
| Calgary 2004/2005 | Calgary 2013/2014 | Calgary change (2013/2014 – 2004/2005) | Edmonton 2004/5 | Edmonton 2013/4 | Edmonton change (2013/2014 – 2004/2005) | Year x city interaction term: Rate ratio and 95% confidence interval from Poisson regression | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (95% CI), n | Mean (95% CI), n | Mean (95% CI), n | Mean (95% CI), n | ||||
| a) All tooth surfaces | |||||||
| Mean defs | 2.6 (2.2–3.0) n = 599 | 6.4 (5.9–6.9) n = 3230 | 3.8a | 4.5 (4.1–4.8) n = 6445 | 6.6 (6.0–7.2) n = 2307 | 2.1a | 1.6 (1.4–1.8), P < 0.01c |
| Mean defs among those with defs>0 | 5.4 (5.0–5.7) n = 273 | 11.3 (10.6–12.0) n = 1835 | 5.9a | 8.3 (7.8–8.8) n = 3415 | 11.2 (10.5–11.9) n = 1334 | 2.9a | 1.6 (1.4–1.8), P < 0.01 |
| Mean DMFS | 0.45 (0.37–0.52) n = 590 | 0.15 (0.13–0.17) n = 3182 | −0.3a | 0.25 (0.22–0.28) n = 6373 | 0.21 (0.17–0.25) n = 2263 | −0.04 | 0.8 (0.6–1.1), P = 0.3c |
| Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 | 2.2 (2.0–2.5) n = 99 | 2.0 (1.8–2.2) n = 253 | −0.2 | 2.4 (2.2–2.6) n = 652 | 2.2 (2.0–2.4) n = 201 | −0.2 | 0.96 (0.8–1.2), P = 0.6 |
| b) Smooth surfaces onlyb | |||||||
| Mean defs | 1.4 (1.2–1.6) n = 599 | 4.3 (3.9–4.7) n = 3230 | 2.9a | 2.8 (2.5–3.0) n = 6445 | 4.4 (3.9–4.8) n = 2307 | 1.6a | 1.8 (1.6–2.2), P < 0.01c |
| Mean defs among those with defs>0 | 3.3 (3.0–3.6) n = 236 | 8.6 (8.0–9.2) n = 1583 | 5.3a | 5.9 (5.4–6.4) n = 2999 | 8.9 (8.2–9.6) n = 1109 | 3.0a | 1.7 (1.5–2.0), P < 0.01 |
| Mean DMFS | 0.04 (0.00–0.07), n = 590 | 0.02 (0.01–0.03), n = 3182 | −0.02 | 0.02 (0.01–0.02) n = 6373 | 0.02 (0.01–0.03) n = 2263 | 0.0 | 2.7 (1.0–7.4), P = 0.06c |
| Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 | 1.7 (1.4–2.0) n = 12 | 2.0 (1.5–2.6) n = 40 | 0.3 | 1.7 (1.4–2.1) n = 59 | 1.7 (1.3–2.1) n = 28 | 0.0 | 1.2 (0.8–1.8), P = 0.3 |
defs = decayed, extracted (due to caries), filled primary tooth surfaces; DMFS = decayed, missing (due to caries), filled permanent tooth surfaces.
a
Statistically significant difference between 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, based on non‐overlapping 95% confidence intervals (CI).
b
Omits occlusal surfaces whenever present; omits buccal (vestibular) surfaces for teeth 46 and 36; omits lingual surfaces for teeth 16 and 26.
c
Interaction terms based on zero‐inflated Poisson regression.