Table 5.
The relationship between socio economic status and DMFT in private and government school children
| SES - govt | DMFT 0 | DMFT (1-3) | DMFT >3 | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper | 4 (2.7%) | 0 | 1 (3.22%) | 0.04* |
| Upper middle | 29 (19.59%) | 9 (4.18%) | 2 (6.45%) | |
| Lower middle | 51 (34.45%) | 117 (54.41%) | 24 (77.41%) | |
| Lower upper | 57 (38.51%) | 84 (39.06%) | 10 (32.25%) | |
| Lower | 7 (4.72%) | 5 (2.32%) | 0 | |
| SES- private | ||||
| Upper | 68 (42.76%) | 77 (37.19%) | 11 (32.35%) | 0.046* |
| Upper middle | 58 (36.47%) | 92 (44.44%) | 16 (47.05%) | |
| Lower middle | 32 (20.12%) | 36 (17.39%) | 7 (20.58%) | |
| Lower upper | 1 (0.62%) | 2 (0.96%) | 0 | |
| Lower | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Kruskal-Wallis test; SES=socioeconomic status. *statistically significant (P<0.05)