Table 2.
Dental characteristics of study group compared to the controls.
| Control n = 30 |
Study n = 30 |
p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caries prevalence (%), i.e., percentage of individuals with DMFT > 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | ns |
| DT | 3.2 ± 1.2 | 2.50 ± 3.15 | ns |
| MT | 10.5 ± 5.8 | 17.50 ± 11.41 | 0.0038 |
| FT | 8 ± 2.1 | 3.13 ± 4.97 | <0.0001 |
| DMFT | 25 ± 5.3 | 23.13 ± 7.32 | ns |
| <5 | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | ns |
| 5–9 | 3 (10.00) | 1 (3.33) | ns |
| 10–14 | 1 (3.33) | 3 (10.00) | ns |
| 15–19 | 5 (16.67) | 5 (16.67) | ns |
| 20–25 | 2 (6.66) | 6 (20.00) | ns |
| >25 | 19 (63.33) | 15 (50.00) | ns |
| GI (six completely edentulous patients were excluded from calculations, i.e., n = 24) | 0.74 ± 0.2 | 0.83 ± 0.86 | ns |
| Number of patients without gingivitis n (%) | 15 (50.00) | 8 (33.33) | ns |
| Number of patients with mild gingivitis n (%) | 8 (33.33) | 9 (37.50) | ns |
| Number of patients with moderate gingivitis n (%) | 4 (16.67) | 4 (16.67) | ns |
| Number of patients with severe gingivitis n (%) | 3 (12.50) | 3 (12.50) | ns |
| PlI (six completely edentulous patients were excluded from calculations, i.e., n = 24) | 1.18 ± 0.58 | 1.29 ± 0.98 | ns |
| Number of patients with excellent hygiene n (%) | 15 (50.00) | 4 (16.67) | ns |
| Number of patients with good hygiene n (%) | 9 (37.50) | 9 (37.50) | ns |
| Number of patients with satisfactory hygiene n (%) | 5 (20.83) | 6 (25.00) | ns |
| Number of patients with unsatisfactory hygiene n (%) | 1 (3.33) | 5 (20.83) | <0.0001 |
Abbreviations: DMFT—caries severity index; that is, a sum of decayed teeth (DT), teeth missing due to carious process (MT), and teeth filled because of caries (FT); n: number of patients; GI: gingival index; PlI: plaque index; ns: non-significant.