Table 3.

Study overview and main findings (adults).

First Author	Country	Assessment of Dental Service Use	Study Type/Time	Sample	Sample Size; Age; Females in Total Sample	Predisposing Factors	Enabling Factors	Need Factors
Astrom (2013) [32]	Sweden	using dental services at least once a year (yes/no)	longitudinal study (four waves from 1992 to 2007)	recruited among everyone who was born in 1942 and lived in Orebro and Ostergotland, Sweden, in 1992	n = 4143 1942 birth cohort 52.2% females	Regression analysis showed that female gender (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7) and being married (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.2) were positively associated with dental services use, while the country of birth was not a significant predictor.	Good quality of dental care (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.4), dental care as a child (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.9) and public care (OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.2–0.3) were significantly positively related to dental services use, whereas the receive of information during the last visit was not significant.	Missing no teeth (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.8) was positively and perceived problems (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–0.8) was negatively associated with dental attendance.
Born (2006) [33]	Germany	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP)	n = 4310 M = 50.3 SD = 16.4 20–79 50.9% females	Logistic regression revealed that dental attendance was negatively related to a lower education (having completed secondary school: OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.6) and positively related to being female (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8). Age was no significant predictor.	Private health insurance (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5–4.4) and using a bonus booklet (OR: 8.2, 95% CI: 6.3–10.6) led to an increased likelihood of dental attendance.	Not holding regular dental attendance for important (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.1–0.3) was negatively on the one side, being satisfied with one’s teeth appearance (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.6), still having one’s own teeth (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 2.2–4.8) and Caries (OR: 1.0, 95% CI; 1.0–1.0) were positively associated with dental visits. In addition, the reason for one’s last dental visit (e.g. prevention: OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.8) was a significant predictor.
Branch (1981) [34]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	noninstitutionalized elders aged 65 years or older	n = 1625 M = 73.2 ≥65 60.0% females	Regression analysis found out that education (ß = 0.1, p < 0.05) was significantly associated with dental attendance. Race, age, gender, household composition and marital status were not.	Income (ß = 0.1, p < 0.05) and occupation (ß = –0.2, p < 0.001) were significant independent variables. Insurance, transportation problems and regular physician visits were insignificant.	Perceived health status, activities of daily living, physical activity performance, ability to climb stairs or walk a half mile and health problems remained insignificant.
Brzoska (2017) [35]	Germany	at least one dental checkup during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	German Health Update 2009 and German Health Update 2010	n = 41,220 age not reported 59.7% females	Regression analysis revealed that migrant status (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–0.7), age (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 1.0–1.0) and female sex (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.8–2.0) were associated with dental visits.	High socioeconomic status (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 2.4–2.8), private health insurance (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–0.8), living in a partnership (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.6–1.7) or in Western Germany (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8–0.9) or in an urban setting (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.9, 1.0) and strong social support (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3–1.5) were significantly related to dental visits.	not investigated
Davidson (1997) [36]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	WHO International Collaborative Study of Oral Health Outcomes (ICS–II)	n = 4386 35–44: 52.0% 65–74: 48.0% female: not displayed	Regarding White people in Baltimore, regression showed that nine to eleven education years (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.8), wearing dentures (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–1.0) and being edentulous (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.1–0.2), not being afraid of the visit (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.2) and motivation to visit (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.7–4.1) were associated with the chances of dental attendance. Age, gender, marital status, general health and other oral health beliefs remained insignificant. Regarding African–Americans, being edentulous (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1–0.9) and not being afraid of the visit (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.2) was related to the odds of dental attendance. Age, gender, education, marital status, general health, wearing dentures and other health beliefs remained insignificant.	Among White people, the presence of a usual source of care was associated with an increased likelihood of a dental visit (OR: 30.1, 95% CI: 15.4–58.8). Income and dental benefits remained insignificant. Among African–Americans, the presence of a usual source of care was associated with increased odds of a dental visit (OR: 6.7, 95% CI: 2.9–15.5). Income and dental benefits remained insignificant.	For White people, oral pain was associated with higher chances of dental attendance (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3–2.7). Oral symptoms were not.For African Americans, oral pain was related to increased odds of dental attendance (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.2). Oral symptoms remained insignificant.
Davidson (1999) [37]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	WHO International Collaborative Study of Oral Health Outcomes (ICS–II)	n = 4412 35–44: 60.5% 65–74: 39.5% 53.6% females	Regarding regression analysis for Baltimore, being White (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9), nine to eleven education years (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9), being edentulous (OR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.1–0.2), not being afraid of dental visits (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.0) and a motivation to visit (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.5–2.8) were related to dental attendance. Age, gender, marital status, general health, dentures, thinking that oral health is important and having a dentist available remained insignificant.	With regard to Baltimore, having a usual source of care (OR: 16.9, 95% CI: 10.0–28.6) was associated with increased odds of dental attendance. Income and dental visits remained insignificant.	Referring to Baltimore, oral pain was related to increased odds of dental attendance (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.3). The number of oral symptoms was not.
Ekanayake (2002) [38]	Sri Lanka	at least one dental visit during the last two years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	employees of public sector institutions situated in the city of Kandy	n = 210 21–34: 27.1% 35–45: 47.6% >45: 25.3% 50.5% females	Logistic regression showed that female gender was associated with an increased likelihood of dental attendance (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4–4.7)	not investigated	Dental pain within the last six months was related to increased odds of a dental visit (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0–4.0).
Evashwick (1984) [39]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last 15 months (yes/no)	longitudinal study (wave 1: 1974, wave 2: 1976)	Massachusetts Health Care Panel Study	n = 1317 65–69: 36.2% 70–74: 27.4% 75–89: 19.7% ≥80: 16.7% 61.7% females	Education and preventive visits at one’s physician were associated with more dental visits, higher age with less dental visits. Widowed use and race remained insignificant, according to multiple regression analysis.	Higher income and a white collar job were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of dental attendance. Having Medicaid, a doctor or transportation problems were not predictive.	A bad health state was linked to decreased odds of dental attendance. Problems with physical activities, walking stairs or half a mile and a poor function status or physical condition were insignificant.
Finlayson (2010) [40]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	UC Davis Immigration to California: Agricultural Safety and Acculturation (MICASA) study	n = 326 M = 36.7 SD = 9.0 20–61 67.5% females	Regarding Generalized estimating equation logit regression, asking for the dentist’s advice was associated with a higher likelihood of dental attendance (OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 2.3–9.5). Age, gender, being married, days worked farming and fair or poor health were insignificant.	Having a regular source of dental care was related to higher chances of having had a dental visit (OR: 4.8, 95% CI: 2.5–9.4). Acculturation, education, income, household size and dental insurance status were not significant.	Self–reported symptoms were associated with decreased odds of dental attendance (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8–0.9). Untreated decay, gum bleeding on probing and subjective need remained insignificant.
Fonseca (2020) [41]	Brazil	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	representative sample of adults living in the State of São Paulo	n = 5709 35–39: 51.2% 40–45: 48.8% 68.0% females	Logistic regression showed that male gender (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7–1.0) and 10 or more education years (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.5–0.6) were associated with decreased, and that non–white skin color (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.5) and toothache (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.4–1.8) were associated with increased odds of dental attendance.	Lower household income was related to increased odds of a dental visit (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 2.1–2.7).	Endodontic treatment was significantly linked to dental attendance (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.9).
Herkrath (2018) [42]	Brazil	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	Brazilian National Health Survey (NHS)	n = 27,017 18–21: 8.5% 22–34: 29.2% 35–44: 19.8% 45–64: 30.0% ≥65: 12.5% 55.0% females	Multilevel logistic regression revealed that higher age (e.g. 65+: OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 2.7–3.8), male gender (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.6), brown race (both: OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.2), less years of schooling (e.g. 0–4: OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.9–2.4) and a low social network (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.4–1.8) were related to an increased likelihood of dental visits.	Lower income (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.4–1.8) and having no health insurance (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.7–1.9) were significantly associated with higher odds of dental attendance.	A poor perceived dental health (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.5–2.1) and missing all teeth (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 2.4–3.3) were positively related to dental visits, while eating difficulties due to an oral problem (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8–1.0) and missing one or more teeth (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–0.8) were negatively related.
Herkrath (2020) [43]	Brazil	ever visited a dentist (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	Brazilian National Health Survey (NHS)	n = 60,202 M = 42.9 95% CI: 42.9–43.0 52.9% females	Regression analysis showed that being male and being younger were related to decreased chances of dental attendance.	Living in urban areas, higher enabling financing and public health center registration were related to increased odds of dental attendance.	Higher perceived needs were associated with higher chances of dental attendance.
Jang (2019) [44]	United States	total count of visits to a dentist during the last year	cross–sectional study	representative sample of Korean immigrants from five cities	n = 2128 M = 73.4 SD = 8.0 60–100 66.8% females	Regarding the Poisson regression, having at least a high school degree was associated with a higher likelihood of dental attendance (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.2). Age, gender, marital status and region remained insignificant.	Dental insurance coverage (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.5) and the presence of a family network (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 1.0–1.0) were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of dental visits. Acculturation and the length of stay in the United States were not significant.	A problem with teeth or gums was related to increased odds of dental attendance (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.2). A fair or poor rating of one’s oral health was not significant.
Kiyak (1987) [45]	United States	any use of dental services during the last three years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	low–income and middle–income elderly, recruited from medical centers with reduced service fees	n = 258 M = 73.6 71.9% females	Multiple regression revealed that one’s importance (b = –0.3, ß < 0.01) and one’s gender (b = 0.1, ß < 0.05) were significantly related to dental attendance.	One’s beliefs (b = –0.1, ß < 0.05), one’s income (b = 0.1, ß < 0.05) and one’s information (b = –0.0, ß < 0.05) were significantly associated with dental attendance.	The number of teeth (b = –0.0, ß < 0.01), one’s perceived need (b = –0.3, ß < 0.01) and wearing a denture (b = 0.2, ß < 0.05) were associated with increased or decreased odds of dental attendance.
Lee (2020) [46]	South Korea	any use of dental services during the last three years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	nationwide sample of homeless people	n = 2032 <50: 26.9% ≥50: 73.1% 19.6% females	According to Poisson regression, drinking was associated with decreased odds of dental attendance (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–1.0). Age, sex, education, duration of homelessness and smoking remained insignificant.	Shelter housing (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.3) and not being employed (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–1.0) were related to dental attendance. Income was not significant.	Subjective health and having a medical disease were not significant.
Limpuangthip (2019) [47]	Thailand	any use of public dental services during the last five years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	randomly selected people aged 50 and above	n = 38,695 60–69: 55.7% 70–79: 30.7% ≥80: 13.6% 55.7% females	Binary logistic regression stated that higher age (e.g. 80+: OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.8–2.1), female gender (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.3), a higher education (e.g. at least tertiary: OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5), higher household possession (e.g. fourth quartile: OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.1–2.4) and dependency status (e.g. low dependency: OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.3) were associated with an increased likelihood of dental attendance.	Working in agricultural and related sectors (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6–0.8), health–promoting behavior (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.7), alcohol drinking or smoking (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.8–0.9), public healthcare service utilization for vaccination (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1–1.2) or recent illness (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1–1.2), treatment by health personnel for recent falling accident (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.8–0.8), being visited by a village health volunteer (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–0.8) and participation in a club for the elderly (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9–1.0) were related to dental attendance. Information awareness was not.	not investigated
Lo (1998) [48]	Hong Kong (China)	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	longitudinal study (two waves from 1991 to 1992)	random sample of 35– to 44–year–olds from two districts in Hong Kong	n = 322 35– to 44–year–olds female: not displayed	Regarding logistic regression, sex (ß = 1.0, p < 0.01) was associated with an increased likelihood of having made a dental visit.	Having a dentist as health counselor was associated with dental attendance (ß = 1.5, p < 0.01). Being a regular user and toothbrushing remained insignificant.	Need for fillings (ß = 0.9, p < 0.05), the number of filled (ß = 0.1, p < 0.01) teeth were associated with different odds of dental attendance. The number of decayed teeth was not significant.
McKernan (2018) [49]	United States	at least one dental visit since being enrolled in the study (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	adults enrolled in the Iowa Dental Wellness Plan	n = 1258 M = 45.2 SD = 12.4 19–64 40.3% females	Referring to a logistic regression model, female sex (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.9), chronic physical conditions (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.9), a high school degree (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.9) and being edentulous (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2–0.8) were related to dental attendance. Age, marital status and ethnicity were not significant.	Worry about transportation costs (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7–0.9) and using public transport systems or walking (OR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4–0.9) were related to a decreased likelihood of dental attendance. Urban–rural character, the distance to the nearest dentist and unmet transportation needs were insignificant.	Dental problems interfere with regular activities was insignificant.
Muirhead (2009) [50]	Canada	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	working poor people aged between 18and 64 years from ten Canadian provinces	n = 1049 18–24: 14.6% 25–34: 19.7% 35–44: 22.4% 45–54: 22.7% 55–64: 20.6% 41.3% females	With regard to the logistic regression analysis, being male (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.3) and being 25 to 34 years old (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1–3.7) was related to dental attendance. Other age groups and lone parent status were not.	Out–of–pocket dental payment (OR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.6–3.3), competing needs (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.9) and a history of welfare receipt (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.6) were significantly associated with dental visits. Income was not.	Being without a functional dentition (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 2.4–7.4) and perceived need for dental treatment (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 2.0–3.9) were related to dental attendance. Oral health impact on sleep was not.
Nasir (2009) [51]	Sudan	at least one dental visit during the last two years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	recruited from a hospital and a university	n = 1262 ≤29: 47.6% >30: 52.4% 64.8% females	Regression analysis showed being female (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4–3.2) were related to increased odds of dental attendance. Travelling outside or inside Sudan was not.	High knowledge of HIV transmission (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.7) and high experience of HIV (OR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.5–1.3) were associated with lower odds of dental attendance. Perceived personal risk and attitudes towards people infected with HIV were not.	Filled teeth (OR: 14.9, 95% CI: 3.1–72.1), good teeth condition (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.8) and good health condition (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.5–1.5) were significantly linked to dental attendance.
Pinto Rda (2014) [52]	Brazil	use of public healthcare services (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	SB Minas Gerais Project	n = 1101 35–39: 52.7% 40–44: 47.3% 65.8% females	Being dark–skinned or black (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.3–4.5) and living with more than four people in a household (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4–2.9) was related to higher odds of dental attendance, according to regression analysis.	A smaller income (e.g. up to 750$: OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.8–9.5) and a smaller town size (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.9–4.6) were linked to a higher likelihood of having had a dental visit.	Teeth needing treatment was positively associated with the likelihood of dental attendance (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.2).
Rebelo Vieira (2019) [53]	Brazil	ever visited a dentist (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	Brazilian Oral Health Survey (SB Brazil Project)	n = 7265 35–39: 52.5% 40–44: 47.5% 69.9% females	Multilevel logistic regression showed that high longevity (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1–1.0), female sex (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.8), brown skin color (OR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4–0.7) and less years of schooling (e.g. 5–8: OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.2) were related to dental non–attendance.	Lower income (e.g. ≤500R$ per month: OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 3.0–8.0) was associated with increased chances of non–attendance.	Perceived dental treatment (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3–0.6) and one or more decayed teeth (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.8) were related to dental attendance.
Reisine (1987) [54]	United States	number of dental visits during the last two years	cross–sectional study	university employees	n = 287 M = 28.0 61.3% females	According to stepwise regression, being male was associated with increased numbers of dental visits (ß = –0.3, p < 0.05). Age, education, marital status, brushing frequency, father’s education, attitude and number of children remained insignificant.	Residence, convenience, transportation and income were not significant.	Decay (ß = –0.1, p < 0.05) and missing or filled teeth (ß = 0.2, p < 0.05) were associated with dental attendance. Fluoride, the reason for the visit and periodontal pocket measures were not.
Serna (2020) [55]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	HIV Risk Reduction among Hispanic Migrant Workers in South Florida	n = 278 18–49: 71.9% ≥50: 28.1% 45.7% females	A logistic regression model revealed that trying to prevent tooth decay (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1–5.7) and brushing teeth once a day (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.6–9.4) were associated with an increased likelihood of dental attendance. Age, sex, country of origin, formal education, relationship status, religious beliefs and use of dental floss were not.	Employment status, medical insurance, place of medical care, social support and acculturation remained insignificant.	A good oral health condition was associated with increased odds of dental visits (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.9–7.9). Need of treatment and oral health problems were not.
Silva (2013) [56]	Brazil	at least one dental visit during the last three years (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	users of Family Health Units in the urban area of Pelotas, Brazil	n = 438 60–69: 57.4% 70–79: 31.6% ≥80: 11.0% 68.3% females	Poisson regression explored that lower education was associated with lower odds of dental attendance (e.g. < 4 years: OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0–2.0).	Being a former alcohol consumer was associated with higher chances of dental attendance (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6).	Having no teeth was related to higher odds of dental attendance (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3).
Stapleton (2016) [57]	United States	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	Indiana Black Men’s Health Study	n = 1444 18–34: 38.3% 35–44: 18.9% 45–64: 35.1% ≥65: 7.7% 0.0% females	According to multilevel regression, being married (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) was associated with increased chances of dental attendance. Age remained insignificant.	Being a college graduate (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2–2.8) or employed (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–1.0), a higher income (e.g. > $35,000: OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1–3.2), health insurance (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2–2.3) and high social support (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–2.8) were related to dental visits. Smoking and the place of sick care were not.	Three or more fruit servings per day were related to an increased likelihood of dental attendance (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2–2.8). Self–rated health status, poor mental health days and vegetable servings remained insignificant.
Suominen (2017) [58]	Finland	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	National Health 2000 and 2011 Surveys	n = 12,759 aged 30 and older not displayed	In 2011, regarding logistic regression, being female was associated with increased odds of dental visits (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.4). Age was not significant.	The presence of waiting lists (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.5) or high costs (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.4–0.8), as a barrier to care, regular check–ups (OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 3.2–4.7), dental fear (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0–1.3) and being recalled (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.0) were associated with dental attendance. Poor connection as a barrier to care was not.	Perceived need for care was related to decreased odds of dental attendance (OR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5–0.7). Self–rated oral health and wearing removable dentures were not.
Tennstedt (1994) [59]	United States	number of dental visits during the last year	cross–sectional study	community–dwelling, noninstitutionalized elders aged 70 and older, living within the six New England states in the United States	n = 3668 M = 77.5 SD = 5.5 70–96 57.0% females	Ordinal logistic regression found out that higher age was associated with a lower number of dental visits (OR: 0.8, p < 0.01).	Dental hygiene practices (OR: 1.5, p < 0.001), higher education (OR: 1.2, p < 0.01) and the presence of a usual source of care (OR: 45.9, p < 0.001) were related to dental visits.	Perceived need for care (OR: 0.7, p < 0.05), the number of caries (OR: 0.9, p < 0.05) and the number of filled teeth (OR: 1.5, p < 0.001) was linked to dental attendance.
Varenne (2006) [60]	Burkina Faso	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	people who had an oral problem from four areas representative of different stages of urbanization of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso	n = 809 15–24: 8.8% 25–34: 22.8% 35–44: 34.1% 45–54: 17.3% ≥55: 17.0% 67.4% females	According to logistic regression, being 25 to 34 years old (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.5–4.7), being Christian (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3–2.6), higher material living conditions of one’s household (e.g. high: OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.1–5.4), agreeing that oral diseases are as important as other health problems (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2–3.6) and disagreeing that going to the dentist is synonymous with pain (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.7) were related to dental attendance.	Active participation in one’s social network (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–3.0) and using a moped or vehicle (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.4–3.2) were associated with an increased likelihood of dental visits.	Oral problem causing limitation or stopping any of usual activities were related to increased odds of dental visits (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4–4.9).
Xu (2020) [61]	China	at least one dental visit during the last year (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	National Oral Health Survey	n = 7206 35–44: 50.9% 65–74: 49.1% 48.9% females	Poisson regression showed that among 35–44–years old people, being female (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.3) and having a high knowledge about oral health (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) were related to an increased likelihood of dental attendance. Education was not. Regarding 65–74 years old people, being female (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) and having a high education (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7) were linked to increased odds of dental attendance. Oral health knowledge remained insignificant.	Location, income, public medical insurance coverage and private medical insurance were not significant among the 35–44–years old. Concerning 65–74 years old, higher income (e.g. third tercile: OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–2.0) and some kinds of public health insurance (e.g. UEBMI: OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.2) were associated with higher odds of dental visits.	Among 35–44 years old people, worse perceived oral health status (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 2.0–3.2) and a worse carious status (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1) were related to higher chances of dental attendance. Among 65–74 years old people, poor perceived oral health (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–2.0) was associated with a higher probability of dental attendance, carious status remained insignificant.
Zlotnick (2014) [62]	Israel	utilization of primary dental care (yes/no)	cross–sectional study	nationwide sample	n = 7068 2000 sample: 18–24: 7.9% 25–34: 21.4% 35–44: 19.4% 45–54: 18.8% 55–64: 14.5% ≥65: 18.0% 2010 sample: 18–24: 6.0% 25–34: 15.8% 35–44: 26.0% 45–54: 21.2% 55–64: 16.7% ≥65: 14.2% 2000 sample: 54.8% females 2010 sample: 53.2% females	According to logistic regression, in 2010, regarding Israeli–Jews, being born in Israel was associated with higher odds of dental attendance (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8). Among Israeli–Arabs, being older than 65 was related to a higher chance of dental attendance (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2–1.0). Age remained insignificant.	Among Israeli–Jews, having visited high school (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.1), being employed (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) having an over average income (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.5–2.3) and flosses (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.4–2.2) were associated with a higher probability of dental attendance. With regard to Israeli–Arabs, having visited high school (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.2), an over average income (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.1) and flosses (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.5–3.1) were related to a higher likelihood of dental attendance.	Pain (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.0–0.1), a normal BMI (OR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6) and being a smoker (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–0.9) were significantly associated with dental attendance among Israeli–Jews. Among Israeli–Arabs, pain (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2–0.5) was related to lower chances of dental attendance.