Table 2.

Among the teeth for which the dentist recommended restorative treatment as definitive treatment at baseline (Y0; N=659), comparison of the characteristics of the teeth that nonetheless never received restorative treated during follow-up (N=181) to the teeth that did receive restorative treatment at some point during follow-up (N=478)

			Recommended for Tx but Tx not received
	ALL1	Column %	N	Row %2	P 3	OR 4
Region					P = 0.04
Western	107	16%	18	17%
Midwest	93	14%	23	25%
Southwest	122	19%	50	41%
South Central	121	18%	39	32%
South Atlantic	110	17%	35	32%
Northeast	106	16%	16	15%
Associate of private practice	58	9%	30	52%	P = 0.03	OR = 3.0
Other practice settings	601	91%	151	25%
Biting pain at Y0	195	30%	40	21%	P = 0.08	OR = 1.4
No biting pain at Y0	464	70%	141	30%
Spontaneous pain at Y0	147	22%	32	22%	P = 0.06	OR = 1.5
No spontaneous pain at Y0	512	78%	149	29%
Wear facet thru enamel at Y0	182	28%	71	39%	P = 0.02	OR = 1.6
No wear facet through enamel	477	72%	110	23%
Caries present at Y0	184	28%	31	17%	P <0.001	OR = 2.2
No caries present at Y0	475	72%	150	32%
Non-carious cervical lesion present at Y0	56	9%	26	46%	P = 0.065	OR = 1.8
No non-carious cervical lesion present at Y0	603	92%	155	26%
Has crack at Y0 that connects with a restoration	521	79%	155	30%	P = 0.03	OR = 1.7
No crack at Y0 connects with a restoration	138	21%	26	19%
Has crack at Y0 that blocks transilluminated light	471	71%	141	30%	P = 0.07	OR = 1.5
No crack at Y0 blocks transilluminated light	188	29%	40	21%
Has crack at Y0 that that extends to the root	70	11%	37	53%	P = 0.01	OR = 2.2
No crack at Y0 extends to root	589	89%	144	24%

¹Column Ns not summing to 899 due to missing data.

²Percent within level of row characteristic.

³Significance of differences in proportions of column heading adjusted only for clustering of patients within practitioner.

⁴OR: Odds ratios (only for dichotomous variables)