Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 20;95(11):1237–1244. doi: 10.1177/0022034516658612

Table 2.

Modified Intention-to-Treat Analysis (n = 897): Comparison of dmfs, ds, and DMFS over Time in the Intervention (n = 463) and Usual Care (n = 434) Groups.

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.

a

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.