Table 2.
Sample Size, n |
dmfs, Mean (SD) |
ds, Mean (SD) |
DMFS, Mean (SD) |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time | INT | UC | INT | UC | INT | UC | INT | UC |
Baseline | 443 | 424 | 19.9 (20.1) | 22.8 (20.1) | 5.5 (7.7) | 6.2 (8.8) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.0 (0.0) |
Follow-up | ||||||||
Year 1 | 217 | 231 | 23.3 (20.4) | 27.1 (21.5) | 3.9 (6.0) | 3.9 (6.4) | 0.03 (0.3) | 0.02 (0.2) |
Year 2 | 238 | 229 | 28.5 (21.1) | 31.2 (21.3) | 5.0 (7.5) | 5.0 (7.3) | 0.4 (1.2) | 0.4 (1.3) |
Year 3 | 118 | 111 | 32.8 (22.3) | 33.6 (18.6) | 5.8 (8.3) | 4.8 (6.4) | 1.6 (2.7) | 1.6 (2.6) |
P valuea | 0.216 | 0.493 | 0.698 |
dmfs, decayed, missing, or filled surfaces (primary dentition); DMFS, decayed, missing, or filled surfaces (permanent dentition); ds, decayed surfaces.
INT, intervention; UC, usual care.
Comparing INT and UC groups over time. For the models for dmfs and ds, we compared outcomes over time from baseline to year 3 follow-up. For the model for DMFS, since the children did not have permanent teeth at baseline, we compared outcomes from years 1 to 3, with baseline dmfs as a covariate.