Table 3.
Zero-inflated Poisson regression analysis between dental caries (dependent variable) and explanatory variables
| Explanatory variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis (final model) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| exp(b) | P | exp(b) | SE | P | ||
| dmfs counts | ||||||
| Gender | Boy* | – | – | – | – | – |
| Girl | 1.94 (1.60–2.36) | 0.000 | 2.33 (1.64–3.30) | 0.41 | 0.000 | |
| Socioeconomic level | Low* | – | – | – | – | – |
| Medium | 0.78 (0.62–0.98) | 0.036 | 0.63(0.29–1.35) | 0.25 | 0.234 | |
| High | 0.65 (0.51–0.83) | 0.001 | 0.44 (0.21–0.92) | 0.16 | 0.028 | |
| Size of residence | < 90 m2* | – | – | – | – | – |
| 90–119 m2 | 2.28 (1.74–3.02) | 0.000 | 2.35 (0.96–5.78) | 1.08 | 0.061 | |
| ≥ 120 m2 | 1.50 (1.13–1.99) | 0.005 | 2.47 (1.14–5.33) | 0.97 | 0.022 | |
| House tenure | Private* | – | – | – | – | – |
| Rented | 1.48 (1.17–1.87) | 0.001 | 2.31 (1.09–4.93) | 0.89 | 0.030 | |
| Internet connection | 1.74 (1.26–2.45) | 0.002 | 1.49(0.91–2.44 | 0.37 | 0.114 | |
| – | – | 0.27 (0.06–1.28) | 0.21 | 0.098 | ||
| dmfs = 0 | ||||||
| Socioeconomic level | Low* | – | – | – | – | – |
| Medium | 2.28 (1.29–4.02) | 0.004 | 2.20 (1.26–5.84) | 0.36 | 0.041 | |
| High | 1.92(1.01–3.35) | 0.022 | 1.55 (0.92–3.47) | 0.34 | 0.201 | |
| Commercial fruit juices consumption | 0.67 (0.28 –0.72) | 0.001 | 0.53 (0.31–0.91) | 0.27 | 0.021 | |
| – | – | 3.07 (0.92–5.34) | 0.28 | 0.000 | ||
*
reference category, statistical significance P ≤ 0.05 (in bold), Wald χ2 (7) = 55.99, P = 0.0000, Vuong test: 4.42, P = 0.0000, Bayesian information criterion (BIC) difference = 80.095.
dmfs, decayed, missing, filled tooth surfaces.