Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0277845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277845

Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: A cross-sectional household-based survey

Vitor Guilherme Lima de Souza 1,, Fernando José Herkrath 2,3,#, Luiza Garnelo 2,#, Andréia Coelho Gomes 2,#, Uriel Madureira Lemos 2,, Rosana Cristina Pereira Parente 2,#, Ana Paula Corrêa de Queiroz Herkrath 1,*,#
Editor: Gaetano Isola4
PMCID: PMC9681076  PMID: 36413557

Abstract

Background

Tooth loss is an oral health condition with high prevalence and negative impact on quality of life. It is the result of the history of oral diseases and their treatment as well as provision of dental care and access to dental services. Socioeconomic characteristics are determinants of tooth loss and living in rural areas is also a risk factor for its incidence.

Objective

To identify contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.

Methods

A cross-sectional household-based survey was conducted in 2019 with rural riverside communities on the left bank of the Rio Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas. These communities are covered by a fluvial health team and two riverside health teams. Interviews were conducted in a representative random sample of dwellers aged ≥ 18 years, using electronic forms to obtain information on oral health conditions, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and use of and access to health services. The outcome was self-reported tooth loss. After the descriptive analysis of the data, a multilevel Poisson regression analysis was performed to estimate the prevalence ratio for the outcome. Variables with p-value ≤0.20 in the bivariate analyses were included in the multiple analysis considering the hierarchy between individual and contextual variables in the multilevel model. Variables with p-value ≤0.10 were kept in the final model and the significance level adopted was 0.05.

Results

603 individuals from 357 households were assessed (mean age 44.1 years). The average number of missing teeth was 11.2 (±11.6); 27.4% of individuals had lost more than 20 teeth (non-functional dentition) and 12.1% were completely edentulous. Contextual characteristic of primary healthcare offered was associated with the outcome. The tooth loss was lower in territories covered by riverside health teams. At individual level, tooth loss was greater in older individuals who had experienced dental pain over the past six months and whose sugar consumption was high. Black or brown individuals, individuals whose household income was higher, those who were on the Bolsa Família cash transfer program, those who consulted a dentist over the past year, and those who reported satisfaction with their teeth/oral health reported less tooth loss.

Conclusion

Tooth loss was associated with contextual territorial factors related to the healthcare service and individual demographic, behavioral, socioeconomic, and service-related characteristics as well as self-perceived oral health conditions. The findings suggest that actions focused on the oral health of these populations involve not only changes in the healthcare service organization, but also intersectoral policies that contribute to reducing social inequalities.

Introduction

Tooth loss is one of the main oral health problems. It is a potentially avoidable and complex oral health outcome that reflects the history of dental disease during individual’s life course and its treatment. The esthetic and functional impact [13], as well as the psychological [4] and social impairments [5] negatively affect the quality of life of individuals [6]. Total tooth loss is the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years due to oral conditions [7].

Although tooth loss has decreased in all age groups in many developed countries, despite significant geographic differences, its prevalence is still high, especially in developing countries [7, 8]. In Brazil, the last oral health survey (SBBrasil 2010) revealed that tooth loss had decreased in adolescents and adults compared to the previous survey, but not among the elderly, whose prevalence of edentulism is just over 50% with an average of 25.4 missing teeth. In adults, the absence of functional dentition (20 natural teeth or more) was observed in approximately 25% of adults and the average of missing teeth declined from 13.5 in 2003 to 7.4 in 2010 [9, 10]. The National Health Survey (NHS), conducted in 2013, showed that total tooth loss affects around 16 million Brazilians [11]. Data from the most recent national survey estimated an 83.3% prevalence of loss of at least one tooth among those aged 30 years or older and 10% of edentulous individuals [12].

The complexity of the tooth loss depicts the endpoint of the most frequent oral diseases, dental caries and periodontal diseases [13], combined with the access and utilization of dental services, the hegemonic curative and mutilating dental care model and the individual health-related behaviors [1420]. The socioeconomic conditions are the underlying factors that play a significant role in tooth loss [15, 1922]. These factors involved in the causal pathway of tooth loss are expressed either contextually or individually.

Tooth loss is an expression of social inequalities. It is higher in population groups at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy than those at the top. It is observed both when individual socioeconomic characteristics (such as family income and education level) or contextual ones (such as the Human Development Index) are considered [20, 2226]. In Brazil, tooth loss is higher among adult and elderly population whose income and education are lower and who declare themselves black and brown [911, 20, 22].

Additionally, living in rural areas can be considered a risk factor for tooth loss [27, 28], as it is to oral diseases as a whole [29, 30]. Data from the Brazilian NHS reveal that tooth loss is more prevalent in individuals who live in rural areas [11]. Contextual characteristics of geographic location contributes to inequalities between rural and urban areas, both in general and oral health. The urban environment can mitigate the negative aspects present in the rural environment, such as geographic barriers, socioeconomic deprivation, and limited access to health services [3135]. Despite having a strong dependence on public healthcare services [36], the physical network of public and private services is inadequate and health professionals are lacking in rural areas in Brazil [37]. Brazil is a large and unequal country, and the northern region has the worst rates of use of health services in the country [38]. Health policies in the region lack institutional structure, continuity, and sensitivity to regional specificities. In addition to the limited provision and organization of healthcare of services clinics, there are low income, population dispersion, the large geographic distances and other barriers to access typical of the Amazon region [3941].

Although there is evidence that the rural Brazilian populations have a high rate of dental caries, periodontal diseases [42, 43] and tooth loss [11, 44, 45], data on the oral health of populations in rural areas of the Amazon region are scarce. Two studies have assessed self-reported outcomes: one study compared urban and rural communities in Pará and found that dental caries and periodontal diseases significantly affected the quality of life of individuals from remote communities [46]; another study revealed that the prevalence of oral health impacts on the quality of life was high in rural communities in Amazonas [47].

While the scientific basis for oral health actions apply to all populations, social and geographic factors might make them peculiar in rural areas. As the place contextualizes health, a deep understanding of the epidemiological profile of tooth loss together with the factors associated with it in rural areas can subsidize effective planning of oral health actions and services taking into account the geographic and social specificities that remoteness brings with it, particularly in the Amazon region. Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate the association of contextual and individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.

Methods

A household-based cross-sectional survey was conducted from March to July 2019 in rural riverside localities along the left bank of Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. The study population included five areas covered by a fluvial family health team (Apuaú, Mipindiaú, Cuieras, Santa Maria and Costa do Arara) and two areas covered by a riverside family health team each (Nossa Senhora do Livramento and Nossa Senhora de Fátima), encompassing seven territories (Fig 1). There were no health professionals based in the territory, except for community health workers (CHW) who are part of the health teams. In the fluvial teams, the other professionals perform most of their functions in a mobile fluvial health unit (vessel), visiting the localities intermittently on monthly trips. In riverside teams, most of the functions are carried out in health units built/located in the communities, which are closer to the urban area, with daily displacement of professionals to the health establishment by river.

Fig 1. Territories covered by the fluvial and riverside health teams.

Fig 1

Municipal division data were obtained from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, IBGE (public domain): https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/geosciences/territorial-organization/territorial-meshes/ and hydrography data were obtained from Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, INPE (public domain): http://www.dpi.inpe.br/Ambdata/English/.

Stratified random sampling was performed based on the number of individuals and households in each community, totaling 3811 people residing in 1350 households as reported by the CHW. The sample size calculation considered a prevalence of 50% of the health outcomes of interest and precision of 0.05, in addition to 10% of possible losses or refusals, adjusted for the finite population, and was carried out in a representative way for adults of both sexes and the elderly, resulting in 753 individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Considering the probability of finding individuals from each group within households (average of 2.215 adults per household), a number of 340 households were estimated to be visited in the study, distributed throughout the territory according to the stratification of the sample by the population size of the forty rural localities comprised in the study.

The households in each community were included by systematic random selection. The sampling interval was determined by the total number of households in each locality divided by the number of households sampled. To select the first household within the first ones located in the initial interval (or the only one selected in the set of households) a random number generator program or table was used, and the ordering of households followed the natural order along the rivers, or the organization of houses and circulation routes in larger rural communities. The random generator program was also used to choose the resident selected in the household when there was more than one individual in each group of interest. Thus, randomness was ensured in all stages of selection.

The interview was conducted using questionnaires developed in the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), an open-source application to create and manage surveys and databases. To make it feasible to cover the entire population dispersed in the study territory, twenty examiners were responsible for data collection. Examiners stayed in most locations for an extended period of time throughout the fieldwork days to minimize possible losses. After 40 hours of theoretical and practical training, a pilot study was conducted in two rural communities, from territories other than those included in the main study. A questionnaire organized in seven thematic sections was used to collect information directly from the residents by trained interviewers, including the characterization of socioeconomic status, health conditions, and use of and access to health services, with an average application time of 60 minutes per household. The outcome of interest for this study was self-reported tooth loss that was obtained through two questions reproduced from the NHS: 1) As for your upper teeth, how many teeth have you lost? and 2) As for your bottom teeth, how many teeth have you lost? The number of missing teeth was the sum of the numerical answers to the two questions, ranging from 0 to 32.

Independent variables were selected according to the theoretical background presented on the determinants of tooth loss. Contextual variables included for each territory were per capita income, average household income, poverty (family income less than US$ 5.50 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) rates, Gini index of per capita income and household income. These continuous numeric variables were calculated based on information from the households evaluated in the territories. Characteristic of primary healthcare was also assessed at a contextual level using a nominal categorical variable, including: 1) locations covered by fluvial health teams (FHT) and CHW, with health unit in the community, 2) locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community, 3) locations only covered by CHW, and 4) locations covered by riverside health teams (RHT).

Individual characteristics were sex (male/female), age (discrete numeric variable), race/skin color (white/black/brown/Asiatic/indigenous), household income (continuous numeric variable), registration (yes/no) in the Bolsa Família program (Brazilian conditional cash transfer program for low-income families), occupation (yes/no), monthly sugar consumption of family, time since last dental appointment, dental pain over the past six months (yes/no) and satisfaction with teeth/oral health. Time since last dental appointment was evaluated according to the categories: over the past 12 months, more than 1 year up to 2 years ago, more than 2 years up to 3 years ago, more than 3 years ago, and never have been to the dentist. Satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Sugar consumption was evaluated in kilograms (continuous numeric variable) through the availability inferred by the frequency of monthly purchases of sugary foods at home.

The data collected in the study were directly exported from REDCap to the database files of the Stata program. Initially, a descriptive analysis of the data was performed. In addition to the main outcome of interest, the number of missing teeth, dichotomous outcomes of total tooth loss (complete edentulism), severe tooth loss (up to 8 natural teeth) and non-functional dentition (less than 20 natural teeth) were also described. These conditions are not mutually exclusive. Then, Poisson regression analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with the number of missing teeth (count outcome), estimating the rate ratios and respective 95% confidence intervals. Poisson regression coefficients (β) can be interpreted as the log of the rate ratio. Thus, the rate ratio was obtained by exponentiating the Poisson regression coefficient. In the analyses, rate ratios represent the expected count outcome for X+1 divided by the expected count outcome for X. A multilevel modeling analysis was carried out to include the hierarchical structure or grouping of the study population in the respective territories (Fig 2). Variables with p-values lower than or equal to 0.20 in the bivariate analyses were included in the multiple analysis considering the hierarchy between individual and contextual variables in the model. The first model included only the contextual variables. The individual variables were included in the second model. Variables with p-values lower than or equal to 0.10 when included into the hierarchical model were maintained in the final model. The significance level adopted was 0.05.

Fig 2. Hypothesized hierarchical analytical model for tooth loss in the rural riverside population.

Fig 2

This study is part of a broader project that aimed to evaluate the living and health conditions and access to health services of rural riverside populations. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CAAE No. 57706316.9.0000.0005) and written informed consent was obtained from individuals to participate in the study.

Results

A total of 603 individuals residing in 357 households distributed throughout the seven territories along the Negro River were assessed. The mean age of the individuals was 44.1, ranging from 18 to 90.7 years, and 50.9% were female. The mean number of self-reported missing teeth was 11.2 (±11.6), ranging from no missing teeth (9.9%, n = 60) to total tooth loss (12.1%, n = 73). A total of 27.4% of individuals had less than 20 teeth (non-functional dentition) and 19.6% of individuals presented severe tooth loss (less than 8 natural teeth). Table 1 shows the contextual and individual characteristics of the study participants.

Table 1. Contextual and individual characteristics of adults and elderly residents in rural riverside localities included in the study, Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas, 2019.

Variable n (%) / mean (±SD)
Contextual characteristics
Per capita income (BRL) 335.34 (±370.77)
Average household income (BRL) 1073.28 (±121.58)
Poverty rate 50.3 (±15.6)
Extreme poverty rate 29.5 (±10.6)
Gini index of per capita income 0.495 (±0.064)
Gini index of household income 0.393 (±0.043)
Individual characteristics
Sex
    Male 296 (49.1%)
    Female 307 (50.9%)
Age 44.1 (±17.9)
Race/skin color
    White 62 (10.3%)
    Black 42 (7.0%)
    Brown 441 (73.1%)
    Indigenous 52 (8.6%)
    Ignored 6 (1.0%)
Household income (BRL) 1107.62 (±872.03)
Bolsa Família program
    No 334 (55.4%)
    Yes 269 (44.6%)
Working residents
    No 101 (16.8%)
    Yes 502 (83.3%)
Monthly sugar consumption of family (kg) 6.8 (±5.0)
Last dentist appointment
    Never 18 (3.0%)
    Over the past 12 months 296 (49.1%)
    More than 1 year up to 2 years ago 98 (16.2%)
    More than 2 years up to 3 years ago 45 (7.5%)
    More than 3 years ago 146 (24.2%)
Dental pain over the past 6 months
    No 478 (79.3%)
    Yes 125 (20.7%)
Satisfaction with teeth/oral health
    Does not know/did not answer 3 (0.5%)
    Very satisfied 45 (7.4%)
    Satisfied 326 (54.1%)
    Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 76 (12.6%)
    Dissatisfied 136 (22.5%)
    Very dissatisfied 17 (2.9%)

BRL, Brazilian Real

Prior to the multilevel analyses, the null model was adjusted to verify contextual effects. The null model showed a statistically significant random effect [Var = 0.017, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.006–0.054], revealing significant differences between the territories. The likelihood-ratio test of the null model versus the OLS baseline model was also significant (p<0.001), indicating the need for multilevel modeling since the estimates of the model differed significantly from the estimates obtained from the model with no level structures. Table 2 shows the results of the bivariate analyses.

Table 2. Unadjusted rate ratios for the contextual and individual variables and the self-reported number of missing teeth, Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas, 2019.

Variable exp(β) 95%CI p-value
Contextual characteristics
Per capita income 1.00 1.00–1.00 <0.001
Average household income 1.00 1.00–1.00 0.142
Poverty rate 0.71 0.40–1.26 0.243
Extreme poverty rate 0.94 0.34–2.62 0.908
Gini index of per capita income 1.36 0.28–6.72 0.706
Gini index of household income 2.07 0.33–13.00 0.437
Characteristic of primary healthcare offered (ref.: locations covered by FHT and CHW, with health unit in the community)
    Locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community 0.97 0.89–1.05 0.398
    Locations only covered by CHW 1.17 1.09–1.25 <0.001
    Locations covered by RHT 1.16 0.95–1.42 0.145
Individual characteristics
Sex (ref.: male)
    Female 0.98 0.94–1.03 0.460
Age 1.04 1.04–1.04 <0.001
Race/skin color (ref.: white)
    Black 0.86 0.77–0.95 0.005
    Brown 0.67 0.63–0.72 <0.001
    Indigenous 0.95 0.86–1.05 0.296
Household income (log[BRL]) 1.29 1.25–1.33 <0.001
Bolsa Família program (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.43 0.40–0.45 <0.001
Working residents (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.47 0.45–0.50 <0.001
Montly sugar consumption of family (10kg) 1.20 1.15–1.26 <0.001
Dentist appointment over the past year (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.67 0.64–0.71 <0.001
Dental pain over the past 6 months (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.86 0.81–0.92 <0.001
Satisfaction with teeth/oral health (ref.: very satisfied / satisfied)
    Very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied/ neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1.17 1.11–1.23 <0.001

FHT, fluvial health team

RHT, riverside health team

CHW, community health worker

BRL, Brazilian Real

Table 3 shows the adjusted rate ratios, indicating the association of contextual characteristic of primary healthcare offered with self-reported number of missing teeth. Locations covered by riverine teams presented lower tooth loss than those covered by fluvial teams with CHW in a health facility in the territory. At individual level, a higher number of missing teeth was found in older individuals, those who consumed more sugar at home, who had experienced dental pain over the past six months, and those who reported worse satisfaction with their teeth/oral health. Individuals who reported less tooth loss were those who declared their skin color as black or brown, those who benefit from the Bolsa Família program, those with a higher household income, and those who attended dental appointments over the past year.

Table 3. Final hierarchical model with adjusted rate ratios for the self-reported number of missing teeth, Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas, 2019.

Variable exp(β) 95% CI p-value
Contextual characteristics
Per capita income 1.00 1.00–1.00 0.188
Characteristic of primary healthcare offered (ref.: locations covered by FHT and CHW, with health unit in the community)
    Locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community 0.96 0.88–1.04 0.274
    Locations only covered by CHW 1.03 0.95–1.11 0.472
    Locations covered by RHT 0.88 0.79–0.99 0.038
Individual characteristics
Age 1.04 1.04–1.04 <0.001
Race/skin color (ref.: white)
    Black 0.82 0.74–0.91 <0.001
    Brown 0.85 0.79–0.91 <0.001
    Indigenous 1.00 0.91–1.10 0.989
Total household income (log[BRL]) 0.95 0.91–0.98 0.010
Bolsa Família program (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.86 0.80–0.92 <0.001
Mantly sugar consumption of Family (10kg) 1.08 1.02–1.14 0.004
Dentist appointment over the past year (ref.: no)
    Yes 0.90 0.85–0.95 <0.001
Dental pain over the past 6 months (ref.: no)
    Yes 1.09 1.02–1.16 0.012
Satisfaction with teeth/oral health (ref.: very satisfied / satisfied)
    Very dissatisfied/ dissatisfied/ neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 1.10 1.05–1.16 <0.001

FHT, fluvial health team

RHT, riverside health team

CHW, community health worker

BLR, Brazilian Real

Discussion

Tooth loss has been gaining attention as an indicator for monitoring oral health. Socioeconomic and demographic factors and characteristics related to health service can play a role in this complex outcome. In the present study, which covered rural areas along the Negro River, in Manaus, the RHT were a protective contextual factor against tooth loss. As for individual characteristics, older individuals, who consumed more sugar at home, had experienced dental pain in the past six months, and who reported worse satisfaction with their teeth/oral health, presented a high number of self-reported missing teeth. Black or brown individuals reported less tooth loss as well as those whose benefit from the income transfer program, those with a higher household income, and those who attended dental appointments over the past year.

The mean number of missing teeth reported was high. Few individuals had not lost any teeth and approximately 27% presented non-functional dentition. Rural populations of elderly living the southeast and south of Brazil presented around 50% of edentulism [2, 48]. The last representative epidemiological survey in Brazil was carried out in 2010 in urban areas in the northern inland region and in state capitals. The survey reported that the average of missing teeth in the northern inland region for the age groups 15–19 years, 35–44 years, 65–74 years was 1.2, 11.3 and 27.4, respectively. In the capital of the state of Amazonas, the average of missing teeth was 0.6, 11.0 and 26.2, respectively. This study also showed that the prevalence of tooth loss (ages 15–19), presence of less than 21 natural teeth (ages 35–44) and edentulism (ages 65–74) was 44%, 40% and 56%, respectively [10].

The RHT figured as a contextual protective factor against tooth loss in rural areas along the Negro River. Although the literature suggests that locations with greater coverage of the service tend to present greater tooth loss, especially due to the characteristics of the healthcare model [49], the intermittent presence of fluvial health teams in the territories under their responsibility might mean greater difficulty carrying out health promotion actions when compared to the areas covered by riverside health teams. Garnelo et al. [50] suggest that an expansion of the role of community health agents in these territories could contribute to overcoming the limitations of the current healthcare model due to the short stay of fluvial health teams in each community as well as recognizing the specificities of rural riverside populations when organizing health services to overcome their social exclusion and invisibility. This would contribute to a more rational use of the limited human, financial and structural resources characteristic of the northern region of Brazil and also to a greater resoluteness of health care [39, 40].

At individual level, age was associated with self-reported tooth loss, as expected. Considering the cumulative effects of oral diseases and, consequently, of tooth loss, the prevalence of tooth loss depends on age, as other studies with national and international data have shown. The main causes of tooth loss are related to chronic and cumulative effects of dental caries and periodontal diseases [8, 10, 13, 16, 5153]. Other hypotheses that could explain the increase in tooth loss with aging are related to dental service and not always convergent. One of these hypotheses is related to the limited use of dental services [54, 55]. It is also possible that dental treatment preferences and expectations of older patients and dentists change with aging and the lack of social policies to protect the elderly people can affect their health [54, 56, 57]. On the other hand, the increase in tooth loss throughout life could be due to the mutilating characteristics of dental care, which historically, including in Brazil, fails to offer an alternative conservative treatment to tooth extraction [16, 21, 5860]. In Brazil, although this situation has undergone positive transformations, the profile of oral health among Brazilian adults and elderly people has not yet changed [15, 17]. In fact, many people believe that edentulism is an inevitable outcome, a natural consequence of aging, a lack of self-care, which influences behaviors related to prevention and preservation of functional dentition [5, 16, 61].

Self-reported tooth loss was more prevalent in individuals who consumed more sugar at home. One study found that consuming sugary soft drinks more frequently increased the chances of tooth loss among young adults in the United States [62]. A systematic review pointed out that fermentable carbohydrates (sugars and starches) were the most common dietary risk factors for both dental caries and periodontal diseases, despite different associated mechanisms [63]. Dental caries is primarily caused by the interaction of biofilm with fermentable dietary carbohydrates on the tooth surface. Blood glucose generates oxidative stress and the advanced glycation end products can also trigger a hyperinflammatory state, causing periodontitis [6365]. Tackling the excessive sugar consumption is now a dominant global public health priority. National and international nutritional guidelines now advocate a population-level reduction in sugar consumption. WHO recommends that children and adults reduce free sugar intake to less than 10% of total energy intake and that only 5% of total energy intake come from free sugars. In most countries in the world, however, sugar consumption is considerably higher than the WHO recommendation, especially among disadvantaged and low-income groups [66].

Dental pain, present in almost 20% of the sample, was also associated with a higher prevalence of tooth loss. In adults, dental pain affects daily activities, either functionally or socially [67]. The Brazilian last national oral health survey showed that the prevalence of dental pain within the previous six months was 27.5% in adults and 10.8% in elderly [9]. These numbers were similar for the North region (23.4% and 9.9%, respectively). Some reports have evidenced that dental pain is one of the main reasons for seeking dental care [18, 60, 68, 69], including in rural areas [2, 29, 53]. A study with elderly people living in a rural community of slave descendants in Brazil found that 62% of their last dental visit was due to pain/extraction [2]. Bhat et al. [53] showed that the main reasons for dentist appointments in a rural population in India were necessity, pain relief (31%), tooth extraction (54%), rather than regular or preventive dental care. Pain/urgent problem was responsible for almost 25% of clinical visits (while “hole tooth/fillings required” corresponded for 37%) among Aboriginal people attending rural and remote dental clinics, who presented a prevalence of 93.8% of dental pain in the previous six months [29]. As dental care is not easily accessible to people not living in capital city areas and care delivery models are often constrained, it is assumed that they are less willing to attend several dental appointments for preventive treatment and more likely to have a problem-orientated pattern of dental attendance. Many patients may wait until their dental problems become painful or until serious infections develop to seek for dental services areas [34, 70] and, for this reason, the incidence of dental extractions is high. In addition, dentists working in rural areas and small towns may have limited resources, little experience in providing specialized conservative dental treatment and so are less likely to supply preventive care than capital city dentists [34, 53]. In Brazil, the predominance of mutilating over conservative treatments is part of the recent history of public oral health, regardless of geographic location, as previously described.

Black or brown individuals reported less tooth loss. Although this issue is particularly complex in the study population [71], many studies report racial inequities in tooth loss. Most of them point to a higher prevalence among blacks and browns [72, 73], although there is evidence that it may be higher among whites [59]. Gilbert et al. [74] put this question in perspective, stating that a comprehensive understanding of the total effect of race and socioeconomic status would need to take into account the effects of both. The characteristics related to the type of service used may also differ according to race/skin color, and should also be considered once racial inequalities go beyond socioeconomic differences [75].

Higher household income was an individual protective factor against self-reported tooth loss. A huge body of evidence supports this relationship between income and tooth loss in adults, whether in Brazilian [10, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25] or other countries populations [21, 26, 76], including two systematic reviews [77, 78]. The authors consider some possible explanations for this association, ranging from the structural to individual levels. Income disparity could represent a lack of investment in public resources such as dental services and water fluoridation, as the interests, needs and perceptions of the rich diverge from those of the poor. Furthermore, the presence of income inequality can lead to a non-cohesive society in which the dissemination of health information can be limited. Some studies have shown that low-income individuals are less likely to engage in preventive health behaviors, which play a relevant role in the establishment and progression of dental caries and periodontal disease. In addition to these factors, low-income individuals face more barriers to access dental services and economic restriction is also strongly associated with the type of dental treatment administered. While low-income individuals are more prone to tooth extraction, those with higher income are more likely to seek periodic consultations and conservative dental treatments, which results in the preservation of more teeth [10, 23, 74, 77, 79]. As in all oral diseases, there is a social relationship related to tooth loss: the lower income and schooling, the greater is tooth loss [10], depicting the pervasive inequality in this oral health outcome.

Cash transfer programs are important instruments for reducing family vulnerability [80] and they have shown a positive impact on the outcome related to oral health of individuals. The Bolsa Família program contributes to supplement household income, and the fulfillment of conditionalities guarantee food security, education, and health. Consequently, use of health facilities are also more frequent, including medical and dental appointments [81]. A family with better financial resources is also more able to overcome low availability and other barriers to accessing health services [3941, 50]. Although a significant percentage of the population assessed are on the Bolsa Família program (44.6%), compared to the overall rates of the North region and Brazil, it could still be considered insufficient given the high rate of poverty and extreme poverty [82].

Individuals who attended dental appointments in the past year–almost half of the sample–reported a lower number of missing teeth. Studies carried out in the Brazilian population also showed that having had at least one dental appointment within this period was associated with a higher prevalence of favorable outcomes (preservation of functional dentition), which means that greater access to dental services is a factor associated with reduced tooth loss in Brazil [15, 20, 49, 83]. In accordance, other studies provided evidence that not having attended dental appointments in the past 12 months was associated with greater tooth loss [53, 73]. Dental appointment in the past 24 months has also proved to be a protective factor against tooth loss [16, 84].

Self-reported satisfaction with teeth and oral health was positively associated with reduced tooth loss, which is in agreement with previous findings [85]. This association is not surprising. The assessment of subjective measures improves the understanding of the consequences of oral diseases and tooth loss. Tooth loss causes functional impairment, for example, when chewing, and esthetic impairment, depending on where tooth loss occurred, which can ultimately affect the subjective perception of oral health and quality of life [6, 84].

There was no association between sex and self-reported tooth loss. Several studies have shown that this outcome is more frequent in women [11, 16, 59, 86], but this was not found in this population. Furthermore, contextual characteristics (per capita income, average household income, rate of poverty and extreme poverty, Gini index of per capita income and household income) were also not associated with tooth loss, as it might have been expected according to some studies. Although individual socioeconomic status has been associated with tooth loss, the less heterogeneous and highly vulnerable social context in these rural riverside locations [40] might have not allowed to identify differences in the assessed outcome.

Some limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design, thus causal inferences must be interpreted with caution. Considering the vulnerable situation of these populations, survival bias might be present. Information bias may also have occurred due to the self-reported data. Although the lack of a clinical examination to verify the oral health status of the adults interviewed could be considered a limitation, self-perception of the number of missing teeth has high validity according to the literature [87]. The questions used to assess tooth loss referred to the number of missing teeth, following the same criteria used in national health surveys carried out in Brazil [12]. However, despite the examiners having been trained, for individuals who have lost many teeth it can be difficult to remember exactly how many, tending to underestimate the number of missing teeth. Although more households than estimated in the sampling were included in the study due to the establishment of new families in some rural communities in the period between sampling and data collection, the minimum sample size was not achieved once the probability of finding residents in the households was lower than planned. As the sample size calculation considered the representativeness of the groups of interest and the analyzes were performed for adults and elderly together, the sample size remained representative for the study population. In addition, the prevalence of tooth loss in the study population was higher than the proportion used for the sample size calculation, which would require a smaller sample size than that calculated.

Conclusions

The study population presented a high number of self-reported missing teeth. The presence of RHT was a contextual protective factor for tooth loss. As for individual factors, older age, white race/skin color, lower family income, non-inclusion in the Brazilian cash transfer program, higher sugar consumption, dental pain, worse self-perceived oral health and not having had a dental appointment over the past year were associated with a higher number of missing teeth. Tooth loss represents the endpoint of oral diseases and the failure of the dental healthcare model in preventing and controlling the most prevalent oral diseases. The high prevalence of this outcome found in individuals from rural riverside locations and the associated contextual and individual factors point at two directions: the need for prosthetic rehabilitation to restore functional dentition and esthetics and the need of a model of care that allows for preventive actions against tooth loss, which includes preventing main oral diseases, tooth caries and periodontal disease—the main causes of tooth loss. In addition, a broader approach in health promotion that addresses the social determinants of tooth loss, including intersectoral actions as well as individuals’ empowerment and development of personal skills, especially considering the peculiar rural context, should be encouraged to promote effective action on the structural determinants to tackle the unrighteous but avoidable inequalities in rural oral health.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework: Herkrath, F. J. (2022, October 11). “Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based survey”. Retrieved from www.osf.io/6sjf9.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz - PROEP-Labs/ILMD Fiocruz Amazônia, call for proposals 001/2020 (https://amazonia.fiocruz.br), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES PDPG Amazônia Legal, call for proposals 013/2020 (https://www.gov.br/capes), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas -FAPEAM Posgrad (http://www.fapeam.am.gov.br). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Saintrain MVL, Souza EHA. Impact of tooth loss on the quality of life. Gerodontology. 2012; 29(2):e632–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00535.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sandes LFF, Freitas DA, Souza MFNS. Oral health of elderly people living in a rural community of slave descendants in Brazil. Cad Saude Colet. 2018; 26(4):425–31. doi: 10.1590/1414-462X201800040415 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Boeskov Øzhayat E, Korduner EK, Collin Bagewitz I, Öwall B. Impairments due to tooth loss and prosthetic expectations in patients from an urban area and a rural area in Sweden. A qualitative study. J Oral Rehabil. 2020; 47(2):212–20. doi: 10.1111/joor.12911 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rouxel P, Heilmann A, Demakakos P, Aida J, Tsakos G, Watt RG. Oral health-related quality of life and loneliness among older adults. Eur J Ageing. 2016; 14(2):101–9. doi: 10.1007/s10433-016-0392-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bitencourt FV, Corrêa HW, Toassi RFC. Tooth loss experiences in adult and elderly users of Primary Health Care. Cien Saude Colet. 2019; 24(1):169–80. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018241.09252017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gerritsen AE, Allen PF, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NH. Tooth loss and oral health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8:126. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-126 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, et al. Global, Regional, and National Prevalence, Incidence, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Oral Conditions for 195 Countries, 1990–2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors. J Dent Res. 2017; 96(4):380–7. doi: 10.1177/0022034517693566 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global Burden of Severe Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(7 Suppl):20S–28S. doi: 10.1177/0022034514537828 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Atenção Básica. Coordenação Nacional de Saúde Bucal. SBBrasil 2010: Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde Bucal: Ministério da Saúde; 2012 [cited 2021]. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/pesquisa_nacional_saude_bucal.pdf.
  • 10.Peres MA, Barbato PR, Reis SC, Freitas CH, Antunes JL. Tooth loss in Brazil: analysis of the 2010 Brazilian Oral Health Survey. Rev Saude Publica. 2013; 47 Suppl 3:78–89. doi: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2013047004226 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nico LS, Andrade SS, Malta DC, Pucca Júnior GA, Peres MA. Self-reported oral health in the Brazilian adult population: results of the 2013 National Health Survey. Cien Saude Colet. 2016; 21(2):389–98. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015212.25942015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Medeiros TCC, Areas e Souza A, Prates RC, Chapple I, Steffens JP. Association between tooth loss, chronic conditions, and common risk factors–Results from the 2019 Brazilian Health Survey. J Periodontol. 2021. doi: 10.1002/JPER.21-0433 . In press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019; 394(10194):249–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31146-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fejerskov O, Escobar G, Jøssing M, Baelum V. A functional natural dentition for all—and for life? The oral healthcare system needs revision. J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40(9):707–22. doi: 10.1111/joor.12082 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chalub LL, Martins CC, Ferreira RC, Vargas AM. Functional Dentition in Brazilian Adults: An Investigation of Social Determinants of Health (SDH) Using a Multilevel Approach. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0148859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148859 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ribeiro CG, Cascaes AM, Silva AE, Seerig LM, Nascimento GG, Demarco FF. Edentulism, Severe Tooth Loss and Lack of Functional Dentition in Elders: A Study in Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2016; 27(3):345–52. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201600670 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Leme PAT, Bastos RA, Turato ER, Meneghim MC. The dentist’s clinical practice in the Family Health Strategy: between innovation and conservatism. Physis: Revista de Saúde Coletiva. 2019; 29(1):e290111. doi: 10.1590/S0103-73312019290111 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rauch A, Hahnel S, Schierz O. Pain, Dental Fear, and Oral Health-related Quality of Life-Patients Seeking Care in an Emergency Dental Service in Germany. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019; 20(1):3–7. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guarnizo-herreño CC, Scholes S, Heilmann A, O’Connor R, Fuller E, Shen J, et al. Dental attendance and behavioural pathways to adult oral health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021; 75(11):1063–1069. doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-216072 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Roberto LL, Silveira MF, de Paula AMB, Ferreira E Ferreira E, Martins AMEBL, Haikal DS. Contextual and individual determinants of tooth loss in adults: a multilevel study. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-1057-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Laguzzi PN, Schuch HS, Medina LD, de Amores AR, Demarco FF, Lorenzo S. Tooth loss and associated factors in elders: results from a national survey in Uruguay. J Public Health Dent. 2016; 76(2):143–51. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12123 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Vettore MV, Rebelo Vieira JM, Gomes JFF, Martins NMO, Freitas YNL, et al. Individual- and City-Level Socioeconomic Factors and Tooth Loss among Elderly People: A Cross-Level Multilevel Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(7):2345. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072345 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bernabé E, Marcenes W. Income inequality and tooth loss in the United States. J Dent Res. 2011; 90(6):724–9. doi: 10.1177/0022034511400081 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bernabé E, Sheiham A. Tooth loss in the United Kingdom—trends in social inequalities: an age-period-and-cohort analysis. PLoS One. 2014; 9(8):e104808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104808 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Barbato PR, Peres MA, Höfelmann DA, Peres KG. Contextual and individual indicators associated with the presence of teeth in adults. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:27. doi: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2015049005535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lee JH, Yi SK, Kim SY, Kim JS, Kim HN, Jeong SH, et al. Factors Related to the Number of Existing Teeth among Korean Adults Aged 55–79 Years. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(20):3927. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203927 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Saman DM, Lemieux A, Arevalo O, Lutfiyya MN. A population-based study of edentulism in the US: does depression and rural residency matter after controlling for potential confounders? BMC Public Health. 2014; 14:65. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-65 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Quinteros ME, Cáceres DD, Soto A, Mariño RJ, Giacaman RA. Caries experience and use of dental services in rural and urban adults and older adults from central Chile. Int Dent J. 2014; 64(5):260–8. doi: 10.1111/idj.12118 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Smith K, Kruger E, Dyson K, Tennant M. Oral health in rural and remote Western Australian indigenous communities: a two-year retrospective analysis of 999 people. Int Dent J. 2007; 57(2):93–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2007.tb00444.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kumar S, Tadakamadla J, Duraiswamy P, Kulkarni S. Dental Caries and its Socio-Behavioral Predictors- An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016; 40(3):186–92. doi: 10.17796/1053-4628-40.3.186 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Skillman SM, Doescher MP, Mouradian WE, Brunson DK. The challenge to delivering oral health services in rural America. J Public Health Dent. 2010; 70 Suppl 1:S49–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00178.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ahn S, Burdine JN, Smith ML, Ory MG, Phillips CD. Residential rurality and oral health disparities: influences of contextual and individual factors. J Prim Prev. 2011; 32(1):29–41. doi: 10.1007/s10935-011-0233-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lutfiyya MN, McCullough JE, Haller IV, Waring SC, Bianco JA, Lipsky MS. Rurality as a root or fundamental social determinant of health. Dis Mon. 2012; 58(11):620–8. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2012.08.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Crocombe LA, Bell E, Barnett T. Is it time for an advanced rural dentist? Aust J Rural Health. 2014; 22(2):86. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12093 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Anderson TJ, Saman DM, Lipsky MS, Lutfiyya MN. A cross-sectional study on health differences between rural and non-rural U.S. counties using the County Health Rankings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:441. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1053-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Travassos C, Viacava F. Acesso e uso de serviços de saúde em idosos residentes em áreas rurais, Brasil, 1998 e 2003. Cad Saude Publica. 2007; 23(10):2490–502. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007001000023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bousquat A, Giovanella L, Fausto MCR, Fusaro ER, Mendonça MHM, Gagno J, et al. Structural typology of Brazilian primary healthcare units: the 5 Rs. Cad Saude Publica. 2017; 33(8):e00037316. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00037316 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Stopa SR, Malta DC, Monteiro CN, Szwarcwald CL, Goldbaum M, Cesar CLG. Use of and access to health services in Brazil, 2013 National Health Survey. Rev Saude Publica. 2017; 51(suppl 1):3s. doi: 10.1590/S1518-8787.2017051000074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Viana AL, Machado CV, Baptista TW, Lima LD, Mendonça MH, Heimann LS, et al. Universal health systems and territory: challenges for a regional policy in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Cad Saude Publica. 2007; 23 Suppl 2:S117–31. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007001400002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garnelo L, Sousa ABL, Silva COD. Health regionalization in Amazonas: progress and challenges. Cien Saude Colet. 2017; 22(4):1225–34. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232017224.27082016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Garnelo L, Lima JG, Rocha ESC, Herkrath FJ. Access and coverage of Primary Health Care for rural and urban populations in the northern region of Brazil. Saude Debate. 2018; 42(spe1):81–99. doi: 10.1590/0103-11042018S106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Silva RHA, Bastos JRM, Mendes HJ, Castro RFM, Camargo LMA. Cárie dentária, índice periodontal comunitário e higiene oral em população ribeirinha. RGO Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia. 2010; 58(4):457–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amaral RC, Carvalho DA, Brian A; Sakai GP. A relação entre a saúde bucal e a cárie dentária em oito comunidades ribeirinhas—Pará, Brasil. Rev Bras Odontol. 2017; 74(1):18–22. doi: 10.18363/rbo.v74n1.p.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Saliba NA, Moimaz SAS, Saliba O, Tiano AVP. Perda dentária em uma população rural e as metas estabelecidas pela Organização Mundial de Saúde. Cien Saude Colet. 2010; 15 Suppl 1:1857–64. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232010000700099 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Santillo PM, Gusmão ES, Moura C, Soares RS, Cimões R. Fatores associados às perdas dentárias entre adultos em áreas rurais do estado de Pernambuco, Brasil. Cien Saude Colet. 2014; 19(2):581–90. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232014192.20752012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Maia CVR, Mendes FM, Normando D. The impact of oral health on quality of life of urban and riverine populations of the Amazon: A multilevel analysis. PLoS One. 2018; 13(11):e0208096. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208096 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cohen-Carneiro F, Rebelo MA, Souza-Santos R, Ambrosano GM, Salino AV, Pontes DG. Psychometric properties of the OHIP-14 and prevalence and severity of oral health impacts in a rural riverine population in Amazonas State, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2010; 26(6):1122–30. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2010000600006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Schroeder FMM, Mendoza-Sassi RA, Meucci RD. Oral health condition and the use of dental services among the older adults living in the rural area in the south of Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2020; 25(6):2093–2102. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020256.25422018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Cunha MAGM, Lino PA, Santos TRD, Vasconcelos M, Lucas SD, Abreu MHNG. A 15-Year Time-series Study of Tooth Extraction in Brazil. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94(47):e1924. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001924 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Garnelo L, Parente RCP, Puchiarelli MLR, Correia PC, Torres MV, Herkrath FJ. Barriers to access and organization of primary health care services for rural riverside populations in the Amazon. Int J Equity Health. 2020; 19(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01171-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Haworth S, Shungin D, Kwak SY, Kim HY, West NX, Thomas SJ, et al. Tooth loss is a complex measure of oral disease: Determinants and methodological considerations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018; 46(6):555–562. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12391 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hassel AJ, Safaltin V, Grill S, Schröder J, Wahl HW, Klotz AL, et al. Risk factors for tooth loss in middle and older age after up to 10 years: An observational cohort study. Arch Oral Biol. 2018; 86:7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.11.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bhat M, Do LG, Roberts-Thomson K. Association between dental visiting and missing teeth: Estimation using propensity score adjustment. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018; 9(3):e12326. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12326 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Petersen PE, Kandelman D, Arpin S, Ogawa H. Global oral health of older people—call for public health action. Community Dent Health. 2010; 27(4 Suppl 2):257–67. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Herkrath FJ, Vettore MV, Werneck GL. Utilisation of dental services by Brazilian adults in rural and urban areas: a multi-group structural equation analysis using the Andersen behavioural model. BMC Public Health. 2020; 20(1):953. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09100-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hasworth SB, Cannon ML. Social theories of aging: A review. Dis Mon. 2015; 61(11):475–9. doi: 10.1016/j.disamonth.2015.09.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kossioni AE, Maggi S, Müller F, Petrovic M. Oral health in older people: time for action. Eur Geriatr Med. 2018; 9(1):3–4. doi: 10.1007/s41999-017-0004-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Nguyen TC, Witter DJ, Bronkhorst EM, Truong NB, Creugers NH. Oral health status of adults in Southern Vietnam—a cross-sectional epidemiological study. BMC Oral Health. 2010; 10:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-10-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gaio EJ, Haas AN, Carrard VC, Oppermann RV, Albandar J, Susin C. Oral health status in elders from South Brazil: a population-based study. Gerodontology. 2012; 29(3):214–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2011.00617.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Silva Junior MF, Batista MJ, de Sousa MDLR. Risk factors for tooth loss in adults: A population-based prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Thomson WM. Epidemiology of oral health conditions in older people. Gerodontology. 2014; 31 Suppl 1:9–16. doi: 10.1111/ger.12085 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kim S, Park S, Lin M. Permanent tooth loss and sugar-sweetened beverage intake in U.S. young adults. J Public Health Dent. 2017; 77(2):148–154. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12192 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chapple IL, Bouchard P, Cagetti MG, Campus G, Carra MC, Cocco F, et al. Interaction of lifestyle, behaviour or systemic diseases with dental caries and periodontal diseases: consensus report of group 2 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol. 2017; 44 Suppl 18:S39–S51. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12685 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Evans EW, Hayes C, Palmer CA, Bermudez OI, Cohen SA, Must A. Dietary intake and severe early childhood caries in low-income, young children. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113(8):1057–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2013.03.014 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Fann JC, Lai H, Chiu SY, Yen AM, Chen SL, Chen HH. A population-based study on the association between the intake of soft drinks and periodontal disease in Taiwanese adults aged 35–44 years (KCIS no. 33). Public Health Nutr. 2016; 19(8):1471–8. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015002608 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Watt RG, Daly B, Allison P, Macpherson LMD, Venturelli R, Listl S, et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action. Lancet. 2019; 394(10194):261–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31133-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Cavalheiro CH, Abegg C, Fontanive VN, Davoglio RS. Dental pain, use of dental services and oral health-related quality of life in southern Brazil. Braz Oral Res. 2016; 30(1):S1806–83242016000100272. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Nazir MA. Factors associated with dental pain related to last dental visit among adult patients. Dent Med Probl. 2018; 55(1):63–8. doi: 10.17219/dmp/83039 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Gomes Filho VV, Gondinho BVC, Silva-Junior MF, Cavalcante DFB, Bulgareli JV, Sousa MDLR, Frias AC, Batista MJ, Pereira AC. Tooth loss in adults: factors associated with the position and number of lost teeth. Rev Saude Publica. 2019; 53:105. doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053001318 ; PMCID: PMC6904121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kadaluru UG, Kempraj VM, Muddaiah P. Utilization of oral health care services among adults attending community outreach programs. Indian J Dent Res. 2012; 23(6):841–2. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.111290 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Santos FS. The people of the black waters: the Amazon caboclo of the Negro river. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2007; 14 Suppl:113–43. doi: 10.1590/s0104-59702007000500006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Guiotoku SK, Moysés ST, Moysés SJ, França BH, Bisinelli JC. Iniquidades raciais em saúde bucal no Brasil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2012; 31(2):135–41. doi: 10.1590/s1020-49892012000200007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nazer FW, Sabbah W. Do Socioeconomic Conditions Explain Ethnic Inequalities in Tooth Loss among US Adults? Ethn Dis. 2018; 28(3):201–6. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.3.201 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gilbert GH, Duncan RP, Shelton BJ. Social determinants of tooth loss. Health Serv Res. 2003; 38(6 Pt 2):1843–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00205.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Constante HM. Racial inequalities in public dental service utilization: Exploring individual and contextual determinants among middle-aged Brazilian adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020; 48(4):302–8. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12533 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ito K, Aida J, Yamamoto T, Ohtsuka R, Nakade M, Suzuki K, et al. Individual- and community-level social gradients of edentulousness. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15:34. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0020-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Seerig LM, Nascimento GG, Peres MA, Horta BL, Demarco FF. Tooth loss in adults and income: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43(9):1051–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Roberto LL, Crespo TS, Monteiro-Junior RS, Martins AMEBL, De Paula AMB, Ferreira EF, Haikal DS. Sociodemographic determinants of edentulism in the elderly population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerodontology. 2019; 36(4):325–37. doi: 10.1111/ger.12430 Epub 2019 Jul 5. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Thomson WM. Social inequality in oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012; 40 Suppl 2:28–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00716.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Silva ESAD, Paes NA. Bolsa Família Programme and the reduction of child mortality in the municipalities of the Brazilian semiarid region. Cien Saude Colet. 2019; 24(2):623–30. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018242.04782017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Camelo RS, Tavares PA, Saiani CCS. Alimentação, nutrição e saúde em programas de transferência de renda: evidências para o Programa Bolsa Família. Economia. 2009; 10(4):685–713. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Continuous National Household Sample Survey. Earning from all sources. Rio de Janeiro; 2020. Available from: https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/statistics/social/labor/18083-annual-dissemination-pnadc3.html?edicao=27633&t=sobre
  • 83.Koltermann AP, Giordani JM, Pattussi MP. The association between individual and contextual factors and functional dentition status among adults in Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil: a multilevel study. Cad Saude Publica. 2011; 27(1):173–82. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2011000100018 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Maia FB, de Sousa ET, Sampaio FC, Freitas CH, Forte FD. Tooth loss in middle-aged adults with diabetes and hypertension: Social determinants, health perceptions, oral impact on daily performance (OIDP) and treatment need. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2018; 23(2):e203–e210. doi: 10.4317/medoral.22176 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Rosing K, Christensen LB, Øzhayat EB. Associations between tooth loss, prostheses and self-reported oral health, general health, socioeconomic position and satisfaction with life. J Oral Rehabil. 2019; 46(11):1047–54. doi: 10.1111/joor.12836 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Barbato PR, Muller Nagano HC, Zanchet FN, Boing AF, Peres MA. Perdas dentárias e fatores sociais, demográficos e de serviços associados em adultos brasileiros: uma análise dos dados do Estudo Epidemiológico Nacional (Projeto SB Brasil 2002–2003). Cad Saude Publica. 2007; 23(8):1803–14. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007000800007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Pedro REL, Bos AJG, Padilha DMP, Silva-Filho IG. Validação de entrevista por telefone para avaliação da saúde bucal em idosos. RBCEH. 2012; 8(2):213–20. doi: 10.5335/rbceh.2012.1278 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

João Gabriel Silva Souza

15 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-02459Contextual and individual factors associated with tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Herkrath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

João Gabriel Silva Souza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: 

"This study was funded by PROEP-Labs/ILMD Fiocruz Amazônia, call for proposals 001/2020."

We note that you have provided funding information. However, funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This study was funded by PROEP-Labs/ILMD Fiocruz Amazônia, call for proposals 001/2020 (https://amazonia.fiocruz.br). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Contextual and individual factors associated with tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas

The objective of this study was to identify the association between individual and contextual socioeconomic and service-related factors as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors for tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas. The manuscript brings a result from a population few studied, wich is very relevant. However, some adjustment is necessary and also some points should be clarified.

Abstract:

the objective is too long, and individual is mentioned twice, that is repetitive.

The method should contain the period of the study. What is REDCap?

Why did the authors chose p-value ≤0.10 for the final model? Was the significance adopted 10%?

How was selected the sample?

Was there a sample size calculation?

Is “subjective health conditions” self-perception of oral health?

It is important to understand how were selected the variables.

Introduction

In my opinion tooth loss is not an indicator, but is a condition, the indicator is the prevalence of people who has experienced tooth loss or number of missing teeth, or others quantitative indicator of tooth loss.

I think when the authors describe the health services in North Region, it is important to contextualize the problem is not to be dependent of public health service, but there is a problem of accessibility for health. There is a lack in health service include private service. Besides Brazil have a universal health service, there are difficulties to manage the financial resources (lack of resources) and also is a too big country and unequal. I think these points could be in discussion section.

Methods

I didn´t understand why the sample calculation was 340 households, and the authors aimed to assess 851 individuals. Was the sample size calculation for households or individuals?

Also, I did not understand where this distribution “Of these, 294 were male adults, 258 were female adults, and 201 were elderlies aged 60 or older” came from. These data were expected or what the authors found?

I think there is a bias of information in the outcome. When the examinators ask for the number of missing teeth is more confused, than when is asked about the number of present teeth. Because, when people have lost many teeth is difficult to remember exactly how many.

I think can be underestimated this number of missing teeth.

How many interviewers have participated in the collection of data?

I think it is important the authors give more details of data collection, as how many questions were applied, how long was the interview, what time of the day was done the research. How was the pilot study? Was the questionnaire validated? How was evaluated sugar consumption?

The statistical analyses could be written in a different paragraph then data collection information.

For the outcome it is important to check: “the number of missing teeth, dichotomous outcomes of total tooth loss (complete edentulism), severe tooth loss (up to 8 natural teeth) and non-functional dentition (less than 20 natural teeth) were also described” severe tooth loss and non-functional dentition looks similar, because who has less than 20 natural teeth, can has up to 8 natural teeth. I think this variable could be better explained considering the number of missing teeth or present teeth in an ordinal way.

Average household income from contextual data, could be colinear with household income collected from the individual.

Why did the authors consider significance 10%? Is there a reference for this?

Results

The sample calculation was 340 households, why was examined 357 houses?

Table 2 is different than table 1 in terms of variable. What is the reference for sugar consumption?

And for household income?

I didn’t find the results commented in the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the article and congratulations on the study. In general, the article is well described and methodologically adequate. However, I have a few points to consider.

In the 5th paragraph of the method, the authors classify as "poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$5.50 per day)", wouldn't it be the other way around?

In table 1, it is suggested that the currency to which the variables that include income refer be inserted in the footer.

I have a question about: if the variables were collected only once, why did the authors choose to express the incidence rate and not the prevalence, classically used for cross-sectional studies? Was it considered as a time interval the missing teeth during the life course? In addition, in the discussion the authors cite as "prevalence of tooth loss".

Reviewer #3: Title:

Include: `self-reported` tooth loss

- But if it fits, include the type of study.

Abstract:

Objective:

- Be direct, joining the two dots, as was done for contextual factorsL `between individual` / `as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors `.

Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Methods

- Include: household-based.

- Was there a sample calculation? Is the study representative?

- When was the study carried out?

- What is the age group determined for adult? and elderly?

Results

- For the outcome of tooth loss, age is very important. What is the average age? and adults? and the elderly?

- `(non-functional dentition)`= but if you lose 12 it would no longer be. It was confusing to use this concept for 20 teeth and not functional (the result is loss and not maintenance).

- It would be important in the description to average the missing teeth by subgroup (adult and elderly).

- Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated.

Introduction

- Although all topics well justify the study, it can be reduced.

-The objective of the introduction and abstract must be the same. Standardize.

Methods

- Do not abbreviate: `N. Sra.`.

- When was the study carried out?

- What is the age group determined for adult? and elderly?

- Split the paragraphs of contextual and individual variables. Even in addition to the variables, you could put the categories. Still, I ask you to follow this logic of always contextual and then individual for all data / results / tables. - inserted after explaining about the outcome categories.

- After theoretical and practical training, a pilot study was conducted in two rural communities, from territories other than those included in the main study. - Put in the paragraph on data collection.

- There is a conceptual error in the use of the terms `incidence` / `risk factor / `IRR` for a cross-sectional study. Make the correction for the entire study: `prevalence` /. `associated factor`.

- It could include a figure with the hierarchical model used.

Results

- The study did not reach the minimum sample size. Did it reach the minimum calculated by stratification of sex and age? No longer representative? Need to put on that.

- How many recruited? What is the response rate?

- For the outcome of tooth loss, age is very important. What is the average age? and adults? and the elderly?

- It would be important in the description to average the missing teeth by subgroup (adult and elderly).

- Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated.

- `(non-functional dentition)`= but if you lose 12 it would no longer be. It was confusing to use this concept for 20 teeth and not functional (the result is loss and not maintenance).

- When you put the results of statistical tests, although they are widely used, you need to put them in the method, and not just in the result. Still, it is worth noting what the parameters would be for the reader's understanding.

- Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

- In the analysis it would be important to change the reference category, so that the results do not show protection factor data. Confusing for discussion, greater chance and protection.

Tables

- Put `location and date` in all table captions.

- Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Table 1

- Legend: `study participants` - be more specific = adults and elderly

residents in rural riverside áreas.

Table 2 and 3

- Legend: incidence = review

- Legend: independent variables - be more specific = contextual and individual

- IRR = review / put in the footer

Discussion

- Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

- Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated.

- The discussion follows the logic of first discussing individual factors and then contextual factors. Why didn't the method and tables follow the same order?

- Before putting on the results of tooth loss, I could put a paragraph on the characteristics of the sample. Does it match reality? More women? brown? Half-life adult age.

- Avoid the use of numerical data that are equally repeated in the results topic.

- In comparison with other studies, the location, age group and year of collection need to be clear.

- Third paragraph: What does it help / dialogue in understanding your findings? Looks like what's in the intro. You need to relate to your results.

- risk factor = review

- There is a study of tooth loss in Brazil that can help in the interpretation of findings on age / use dental servisse and tooth loss: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219240

- The discussion of skin color will not resemble the context that has already been discussed about practices of access to mutilating services does not prevent tooth loss (topic of the type of health team). So, lack of access can keep teeth?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Manoelito Ferreira Silva Junior

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0277845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277845.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 May 2022

We thank the reviewers for their comments and/or suggestions, which helped to clarify this work. We have numbered their comments for the authors to help us referring to them when needed. We shall deal with each comment here:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Answer: PLOS ONE's style requirements were checked.

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Answer: The complete questionnaire will be uploaded when submitting the revised version of manuscript.

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

Answer: The ethics statement was amended.

Methods, last paragraph

Removed: “...and the individuals signed an informed consent form to participate in the study.”

Added: “...and written informed consent was obtained from individuals to participate in the study.”

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This study was funded by PROEP-Labs/ILMD Fiocruz Amazônia, call for proposals 001/2020."

We note that you have provided funding information. However, funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This study was funded by PROEP-Labs/ILMD Fiocruz Amazônia, call for proposals 001/2020 (https://amazonia.fiocruz.br). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Answer: The funding-related text was removed from the manuscript text, as suggested. Amended statements were included within cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Answer: The authors are aware of the need to provide repository information for study data once the manuscript is accepted.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Answer: The map in Figure 1 was prepared by a researcher from the study team, a member from the research support department of Leônidas and Maria Deane Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. The map in Figure 1 was prepared by a researcher from the study team, a member from the research support department of Leônidas and Maria Deane Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation. Basemaps/shapefiles used are described below:

Municipal division data were obtained from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, IBGE (public domain): https://www.ibge.gov.br/en/geosciences/territorial-organization/territorial-meshes/

Hydrography data were obtained from Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, INPE (public domain): http://www.dpi.inpe.br/Ambdata/English/

Such information was inserted in the figure caption of Fig 1 as requested.

-----

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

The objective of this study was to identify the association between individual and contextual socioeconomic and service-related factors as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors for tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas. The manuscript brings a result from a population few studied, wich is very relevant. However, some adjustment is necessary and also some points should be clarified.

Abstract

1) the objective is too long, and individual is mentioned twice, that is repetitive.

Answer: The objective was rewritten to comply with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Abstract, Objective

Removed: “To identify the association between individual and contextual socioeconomic and service-related factors as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors for tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Added: “To identify the association of socioeconomic and service-related contextual factors and socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral and self-perceived oral health individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Introduction, last paragraph

Removed: “Thus, the aim of the study was to identify the role of socioeconomic, demographic and service-related factors in tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Added: “Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate the association of socioeconomic and service-related contextual factors and socioeconomic demographic, behavioral and self-perceived oral health individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

2) The method should contain the period of the study. What is REDCap?

Answer: The period was added to the text (2019). The REDCap is now mentioned only in the body of the manuscript, being replaced in the abstract by “electronic forms”.

3) Why did the authors chose p-value ≤0.10 for the final model? Was the significance adopted 10%?

Answer: P-value ≤0.10 was the criteria used to retain the independent variable in the final model. The significance level adopted in the analyzes was 5%. This information has been added to the text.

Abstract, Method

Removed: “Variables with p-value ≤0.10 were kept in the final model.”

Added: “Variables with p-value ≤0.10 were kept in the final model and the significance level adopted was 0.05.”

Method, 6th paragraph

Added: “The significance level adopted was 0.05.”

4) How was selected the sample?

Answer: Considering the Abstract word limit, the information that the study sample was at random and representative for the study population was added. Detailing on the sampling strategies was presented in the Method section of the manuscript.

Abstract, Method

Removed: “Interviews were conducted using...”

Added: “Interviews were conducted in a representative random sample of dwellers aged ≥ 18 years, using...”

5) Was there a sample size calculation?

Answer: Yes, the sample size calculation was performed. This information was presented in the Methods section of the manuscript.

6) Is “subjective health conditions” self-perception of oral health?

Answer: We agree that the name used was very unspecific and we replaced it throughout the text with “self-perceived oral health”.

7) It is important to understand how were selected the variables.

Answer: The variables were selected according to the theoretical background presented in the introduction to the article, aiming to cover some of the main factors related to the outcome of interest. This information was added in the Methods section (5th paragraph).

Introduction

8) In my opinion tooth loss is not an indicator, but is a condition, the indicator is the prevalence of people who has experienced tooth loss or number of missing teeth, or others quantitative indicator of tooth loss.

Answer: We agree with the reviewer and the sentences using the word have been rewritten.

Abstract, Background

Removed: “Tooth loss is an epidemiological oral health indicator with high prevalence and negative impact on quality of life.”

Added: “Tooth loss is an oral health condition with high prevalence and negative impact on quality of life.”

Introduction, 1st paragraph

Removed: “Tooth loss is one of the main oral health indicators.”

Added: “Tooth loss is one of the main oral health problems.”

9) I think when the authors describe the health services in North Region, it is important to contextualize the problem is not to be dependent of public health service, but there is a problem of accessibility for health. There is a lack in health service include private service. Besides Brazil have a universal health service, there are difficulties to manage the financial resources (lack of resources) and also is a too big country and unequal. I think these points could be in discussion section.

Answer: The paragraph has been shortened and some of these points have been added to the discussion (3rd paragraph). Aspects related to the lower availability of services and access barriers were also emphasized.

Introduction, 5th paragraph

Removed: “The transfer of federal resources is lower than the national average, municipal management is complex, securing workers is difficult, and medium- and high-complexity health services are only offered in capital cities. To the limited provision and organization of healthcare of services clinics are associated low income, population dispersion and the large geographic distances typical of the Amazon region [39-41].”

Added: “To the limited provision and organization of healthcare of services clinics are associated low income, population dispersion, the large geographic distances and other barriers to access typical of the Amazon region [39-41].”

Methods

10) I didn´t understand why the sample calculation was 340 households, and the authors aimed to assess 851 individuals. Was the sample size calculation for households or individuals?

Also, I did not understand where this distribution “Of these, 294 were male adults, 258 were female adults, and 201 were elderlies aged 60 or older” came from. These data were expected or what the authors found?

Answer: The sample size calculation was performed for the individuals. Additionally, considering the dispersion of residents throughout the rural area, it was calculated how many households should be randomly selected to reach this sample size, considering the probability of finding individuals in the households (calculated from the average number of residents of the ages of interest in the households for each location). This selection of households was carried out in a systematic random manner, using sampling intervals for each rural locality. The quantitative presented for each group (adults of both sexes and the elderly) were calculated separately and adjusted for the size of the groups, considering that for the main study in which the study was inserted there was interest in specific conditions for each group. Considering the reviewer's statements, the paragraph has been rewritten to make it clearer and to eliminate this misunderstanding between the main study and that information inherent to this specific study.

Methods, 2nd paragraph

Removed: “Stratified random sampling was performed based on the number of individuals and households in each community, totaling 3811 people residing in 1350 households as reported by the CHW. The sample size calculation considered the representativeness of the groups of interest in the main project, adults and elderly of both sexes and children under the age of two years, and the probability of finding individuals from each group within households. The calculation considered a prevalence of 50% of the health outcomes of interest and precision of 0.05, in addition to 10% of possible losses or refusals, adjusted for the finite population, resulting in 340 households, aiming to assess 851 individuals of the target groups. Of these, 294 were male adults, 258 were female adults, and 201 were elderlies aged 60 or older.”

Added: “Stratified random sampling was performed based on the number of individuals and households in each community, totaling 3811 people residing in 1350 households as reported by the CHW. The sample size calculation considered a prevalence of 50% of the health outcomes of interest and precision of 0.05, in addition to 10% of possible losses or refusals, adjusted for the finite population, and was carried out in a representative way for adults of both sexes and the elderly, resulting in 753 individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Considering the probability of finding individuals from each group within households, a number of 340 households were estimated to be visited in the study, distributed throughout the territory according to the stratification of the sample by the population size of the forty rural localities comprised in the study.”

11) I think there is a bias of information in the outcome. When the examinators ask for the number of missing teeth is more confused, than when is asked about the number of present teeth. Because, when people have lost many teeth is difficult to remember exactly how many. I think can be underestimated this number of missing teeth.

Answer: The questions used in the study are the same questions that have been used in national health surveys carried out in the country (https://www.pns.icict.fiocruz.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Questionario-PNS-2019.pdf, variables U23a and U24a). However, we agree with the reviewer's statement. Although some studies have demonstrated the validity of this self-reported measure, a population with higher occurrence of tooth loss may be more subjected to information bias. Therefore, this issue was included in the study limitations.

Discussion, 13th paragraph

Removed: “Information bias may also have occurred due to the self-reported data. Although the lack of a clinical examination to verify the oral health status of the adults interviewed could be considered a limitation, self-perception of the number of missing teeth has high validity according to the literature [86].”

Added: “Information bias may also have occurred due to the self-reported data. Although the lack of a clinical examination to verify the oral health status of the adults interviewed could be considered a limitation, self-perception of the number of missing teeth has high validity according to the literature [87]. The questions used to assess tooth loss referred to the number of missing teeth, following the same criteria used in national health surveys carried out in Brazil [12]. However, despite the examiners having been trained, for individuals who have lost many teeth it can be difficult to remember exactly how many, tending to underestimate the number of missing teeth.”

12) How many interviewers have participated in the collection of data?

Answer: Twenty examiners participated in the data collection (including professors and postgraduate students), who traveled on board on three trips so that it was feasible to cover the study population. This information was added to the manuscript text.

Methods, 4th paragraph

Added: “To make it feasible to cover the entire population dispersed in the study territory, twenty examiners were responsible for data collection.”

13) I think it is important the authors give more details of data collection, as how many questions were applied, how long was the interview, what time of the day was done the research. How was the pilot study? Was the questionnaire validated? How was evaluated sugar consumption?

Answer: The contextual and individual variables assessed were now described in detail and splitted into two paragraphs (Methods, paragraphs 5 and 6). Discussion about the validity of the outcome of interest (self-reported tooth loss) is presented in the Discussion section (study limitations). Information about the collection period, duration of the interview and regarding the pilot study are now presented in the Methods section (4th paragraph). As the study was part of a larger one, the number of questions varied according to the characteristics of the individuals included in the households (such as gender, age and diagnosis of a chronic disease), with an average application time of 60 minutes per household.

14) The statistical analyses could be written in a different paragraph then data collection information.

Answer: The paragraphs were reorganized as suggested by the reviewer.

15) For the outcome it is important to check: “the number of missing teeth, dichotomous outcomes of total tooth loss (complete edentulism), severe tooth loss (up to 8 natural teeth) and non-functional dentition (less than 20 natural teeth) were also described” severe tooth loss and non-functional dentition looks similar, because who has less than 20 natural teeth, can has up to 8 natural teeth. I think this variable could be better explained considering the number of missing teeth or present teeth in an ordinal way.

Answer: The number of missing teeth, a discrete numerical variable (count outcome) was the main outcome of interest for the study. The other dichotomous outcomes (edentulism, severe tooth loss and non-functional dentition) were also described to portray the rural riverine population tooth loss scenario more comprehensively. As noticed by the reviewer, these categories are not mutually exclusive. An edentulous individual certainly did not also have a functional dentition. These classifications of tooth loss have been widely used in studies on tooth loss and were reproduced in the same way in the present study. A sentence was added in the Methods section (7th paragraph) to make it clear that the conditions are not mutually exclusive.

Parker ML, Thornton-Evans G, Wei L, Griffin SO. Prevalence of and Changes in Tooth Loss Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years with Selected Chronic Conditions - United States, 1999-2004 and 2011-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 29;69(21): 641-646.

Ribeiro CG, Cascaes AM, Silva AE, Seerig LM, Nascimento GG, Demarco FF. Edentulism, Severe Tooth Loss and Lack of Functional Dentition in Elders: A Study in Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2016 May-Jun;27(3): 345-52.

Peres MA, Lalloo R. Tooth loss, denture wearing and implants: Findings from the National Study of Adult Oral Health 2017-18. Aust Dent J. 2020 Jun;65 Suppl 1: S23-S31.

Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global Burden of Severe Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Jul;93(7 Suppl): 20S-28S.

16) Average household income from contextual data, could be colinear with household income collected from the individual.

Answer: We do agree with the reviewer's statement. To test multicollinearity, we used the variance inflation factor (VIF) which showed that there is a severe correlation between average household income from contextual data and household income from the individual. Nonetheless, this was not identified between per capita income (contextual) and total household income (individual), variables included in the multiple regression model presented in Table 3. See below the Stata outputs.

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------

logincome | 43.87 0.022797

avg_income | 43.87 0.022797

-------------+----------------------

Mean VIF | 43.87

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+----------------------

logincome | 2.11 0.473706

perc_income | 2.11 0.473706

-------------+----------------------

Mean VIF | 2.11

17) Why did the authors consider significance 10%? Is there a reference for this?

Answer: The significance level adopted was 0.05. This information has now been added to the text (see comment #3).

Results

18) The sample calculation was 340 households, why was examined 357 houses?

Answer: As noticed, there were more households included in the study than estimated in the sampling. This occurred due to the establishment of new families in some rural communities in the period between sampling and data collection. Even so, the guidance for the field team was to use the previously defined sampling interval for the systematic selection of households, resulting in the inclusion of an additional house in some locations.

19) Table 2 is different than table 1 in terms of variable.

Answer: The variable names are now standardized in the tables. The variables of dental health services utilization and satisfaction with teeth/oral health were dichotomized for the regression analyses, but they are described in detail in Table 1, as assessed.

20) What is the reference for sugar consumption? And for household income?

Answer: Continuous numeric variables have no reference category. The measure of association expresses the expected change in the exp(β) (rate ratio) of the outcome for each unit of increase in the independent variable.

21) I didn’t find the results commented in the conclusion.

Answer: The Conclusions section is now presented in the manuscript, encompassing the last paragraph of the discussion.

--------------

Reviewer #2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article and congratulations on the study. In general, the article is well described and methodologically adequate. However, I have a few points to consider.

1) In the 5th paragraph of the method, the authors classify as "poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$5.50 per day)", wouldn't it be the other way around?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for identifying the error. The values were inverted and are now corrected in the text.

2) In table 1, it is suggested that the currency to which the variables that include income refer be inserted in the footer.

Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, it was included.

3) I have a question about: if the variables were collected only once, why did the authors choose to express the incidence rate and not the prevalence, classically used for cross-sectional studies? Was it considered as a time interval the missing teeth during the life course? In addition, in the discussion the authors cite as "prevalence of tooth loss".

Answer: Poisson regression coefficients can be interpreted as the log of the rate ratio. Thus, we obtain the rate ratio by exponentiating the Poisson regression coefficient. This measure of association is traditionally referred as incidence rate ratio (IRR), but we agree with the reviewer that this terminology may not be appropriate due to the study design and for count outcomes. Therefore, we now named exp(β) as “rate ratios” throughout the study and explained it in the Methods section. Corrections were made in the text of the Method (6th paragraph) and Results (Tables 2 and 3) sections.

----------------

Reviewer #3:

Title:

1) Include: `self-reported` tooth loss

Answer: The title of the manuscript was modified as suggested by the reviewer, and so was the variable name throughout the whole text.

2) - But if it fits, include the type of study.

Answer: The title of the manuscript was modified as suggested by the reviewer.

Title

Removed: Contextual and individual factors associated with tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas.

Added: Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based survey.

Abstract:

Objective:

3) Be direct, joining the two dots, as was done for contextual factorsL `between individual` / `as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors `.

Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Answer: The objective was rewritten to comply with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Abstract, Objective

Removed: “To identify the association between individual and contextual socioeconomic and service-related factors as well as individual demographic, behavioral and subjective health factors for tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Added: “To identify the association of socioeconomic and service-related contextual factors and socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral and self-perceived oral health individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Methods

4) Include: household-based.

Answer: It was included as suggested by the reviewer.

Abstract, Method

Removed: “A cross-sectional study was conducted…”

Added: “A cross-sectional household-based survey was conducted…”

5) Was there a sample calculation? Is the study representative?

Answer: Considering the Abstract word limit, information that the study sample was at random and representative for the study population was added. Detailing on the sampling strategies was presented in the Method section of the manuscript.

Abstract, Method

Removed: “Interviews were conducted using...”

Added: “Interviews were conducted in a representative random sample of dwellers aged ≥ 18 years, using...”

6) When was the study carried out?

Answer: The year in which the data collection was carried out was included in the text (2019).

7) What is the age group determined for adult? and elderly?

Answer: For the main study, adults were considered those aged ≥18 years and elderly ≥60 years. Thus, the present study included residents aged 18 or over, encompassing both groups (adults and elderly). This information was added in the Abstract and Method section (2nd paragraph) of the manuscript.

Results

8) For the outcome of tooth loss, age is very important. What is the average age? and adults? and the elderly?

Answer: We agree that there is a direct relationship between age and tooth loss. For this reason, age was included as an independent variable (continuous) in the modeling. The mean age was now included in the Abstract, and more detail is presented in the Results section (standard deviation and range). Subgroup analysis was not performed in the study.

9) `(non-functional dentition)`= but if you lose 12 it would no longer be. It was confusing to use this concept for 20 teeth and not functional (the result is loss and not maintenance).

Answer: The number of missing teeth, a discrete numerical variable (count outcome) was the main outcome of interest for the study. The other dichotomous outcomes (edentulism, severe tooth loss and non-functional dentition) were also described to portray the rural riverine population tooth loss scenario more comprehensively. This classification has been widely used in studies on tooth loss and was reproduced in the same way in the present study. A sentence was added in the Methods section (7th paragraph) to make it clear that the conditions are not mutually exclusive.

Parker ML, Thornton-Evans G, Wei L, Griffin SO. Prevalence of and Changes in Tooth Loss Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years with Selected Chronic Conditions - United States, 1999-2004 and 2011-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 29;69(21): 641-646.

Ribeiro CG, Cascaes AM, Silva AE, Seerig LM, Nascimento GG, Demarco FF. Edentulism, Severe Tooth Loss and Lack of Functional Dentition in Elders: A Study in Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2016 May-Jun;27(3): 345-52.

Peres MA, Lalloo R. Tooth loss, denture wearing and implants: Findings from the National Study of Adult Oral Health 2017-18. Aust Dent J. 2020 Jun;65 Suppl 1: S23-S31.

Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global Burden of Severe Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Jul;93(7 Suppl): 20S-28S.

10) It would be important in the description to average the missing teeth by subgroup (adult and elderly).

Answer: Subgroup analysis was not performed in the study (see comment #8).

11) Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated.

Answer: The abstract has been modified according to the reviewer's suggestion.

Abstract, Results

Removed: “Tooth loss was greater in older individuals who had experienced dental pain over the past six months and whose sugar consumption was high. Black or brown individuals, individuals whose household income was higher, those who were on the Bolsa Família cash transfer program, those who consulted a dentist over the past year, those who reported satisfaction with their teeth/oral health, and those who lived in territories covered by riverside health teams reported less tooth loss.”

Added: “Contextual characteristic of primary healthcare offered was associated with the outcome. The tooth loss was lower in territories covered by riverside health teams. At individual level, tooth loss was greater in older individuals who had experienced dental pain over the past six months and whose sugar consumption was high. Black or brown individuals, individuals whose household income was higher, those who were on the Bolsa Família cash transfer program, those who consulted a dentist over the past year, and those who reported satisfaction with their teeth/oral health reported less tooth loss.”

Introduction

12) Although all topics well justify the study, it can be reduced.

Answer: In response to reviewer #1 suggestion, part of the introduction paragraph that dealt with services in the North region was removed, shortening the introduction. As the reviewer also highlighted the importance of evidencing the theoretical basis for choosing the variables, the other paragraphs were maintained.

13) The objective of the introduction and abstract must be the same. Standardize.

Answer: The objectives of the introduction and abstract were standardized, as suggested by the reviewer.

Methods

14) Do not abbreviate: `N. Sra.`.

Answer: It is now spelled out in full.

15) When was the study carried out?

Answer: The year in which the data collection was carried out was included in the text (2019).

16) What is the age group determined for adult? and elderly?

Answer: For the main study, adults were considered those aged ≥18 years and elderly ≥60 years. Thus, the present study included residents aged 18 or over, encompassing both groups (adults and elderly). There was no subgroup analysis. Information about age was actually missing from the text and it was added in the 2nd paragraph of Methods section.

17) Split the paragraphs of contextual and individual variables. Even in addition to the variables, you could put the categories. Still, I ask you to follow this logic of always contextual and then individual for all data / results / tables. - inserted after explaining about the outcome categories.

Answer: The paragraph was splitted and the manuscript was reorganized according to the logic suggested by the reviewer.

Methods

Removed: “Contextual variables included for each territory were per capita income, average household income, poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$ 5.50 per day) rates, Gini index of per capita income and household income. These variables were calculated based on information from the households evaluated in the territories. Individual characteristics were sex, age, race/skin color, household income, registration in the Bolsa Família program (Brazilian conditional cash transfer program for low-income families), occupation, monthly sugar consumption of family, time since last dental appointment, dental pain over the past six months and satisfaction with teeth/oral health.”

Added: “Independent variables were selected according to the theoretical background presented on the determinants of tooth loss. Contextual variables included for each territory were per capita income, average household income, poverty (family income less than US$ 5.50 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) rates, Gini index of per capita income and household income. These variables were calculated based on information from the households evaluated in the territories. Characteristic of primary healthcare was also assessed at a contextual level, including: 1) locations covered by fluvial health teams (FHT) and CHW, with health unit in the community, 2) locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community, 3) locations only covered by CHW, and 4) locations covered by riverside health teams (RHT).

Individual characteristics were sex, age, race/skin color, household income, registration in the Bolsa Família program (Brazilian conditional cash transfer program for low-income families), occupation (yes/no), monthly sugar consumption of family, time since last dental appointment, dental pain over the past six months (yes/no) and satisfaction with teeth/oral health. Time since last dental appointment was evaluated according to the categories: over the past 12 months, more than 1 year up to 2 years ago, more than 2 years up to 3 years ago, more than 3 years ago, and never have been to the dentist. Satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Sugar consumption was evaluated through the availability inferred by the frequency of monthly purchases of sugary foods at home.”

18) After theoretical and practical training, a pilot study was conducted in two rural communities, from territories other than those included in the main study. - Put in the paragraph on data collection.

Answer: The sentence was moved to the paragraph on data collection, as suggested by the reviewer.

19) There is a conceptual error in the use of the terms `incidence` / `risk factor / `IRR` for a cross-sectional study. Make the correction for the entire study: `prevalence` /. `associated factor`.

Answer: Poisson regression coefficients can be interpreted as the log of the rate ratio. Thus, we obtain the rate ratio by exponentiating the Poisson regression coefficient. This measure of association is traditionally referred as incidence rate ratio (IRR), but we agree with the reviewer that this terminology may not be appropriate due to the study design and for count outcomes. Therefore, we now name exp(β) as “rate ratios” throughout the study. Corrections were made in the text of the Method (6th paragraph) and Results (Tables 2 and 3) sections.

The mention of the independent variable associated with the outcome in the study as a risk factor, identified in the Discussion section, was also corrected.

Discussion, 4th paragraph

Removed: “As expected, age was a risk factor for tooth loss.”

Added: “At individual level, age was associated with self-reported tooth loss, as expected.”

20) It could include a figure with the hierarchical model used.

Answer: The hierarchical model was now inserted in the manuscript, according to the logic presented below.

Methods

Added:

Figure 2. Hypothesized hierarchical analytical model for tooth loss in the rural riverside population.

Results

21) The study did not reach the minimum sample size. Did it reach the minimum calculated by stratification of sex and age? No longer representative? Need to put on that.

Answer: As noticed, there were more households included in the study (357) than estimated in the sampling (340). This occurred due to the establishment of new families in some rural communities in the period between sampling and data collection. Even so, the guidance for the field team was to use the previously defined sampling interval for the systematic selection of households, resulting in the inclusion of an additional house in some locations.

On the other hand, the minimum sample size was not achieved as emphasized by the reviewer, certainly due to the lower probability of finding residents in the households than planned. As the sample size calculation considered the representativeness of the groups of interest (adults and elderly), this would only be a problem if the analyzes had been performed by subgroup. So, considering individuals over 18 years of age, the sample size is representative for the study population. In addition, the prevalence of tooth loss in the study population was higher than the proportion used for the sample size calculation (50%), which would require a smaller sample size than that estimated. This discussion was also included in the study limitations.

Discussion, 13th paragraph

Added: “Although more households than estimated in the sampling were included in the study, due to the establishment of new families in some rural communities in the period between sampling and data collection, the minimum sample size was not achieved once the probability of finding residents in the households was lower than planned. As the sample size calculation considered the representativeness of the groups of interest and the analyzes were performed for adults and elderly together, the sample size remained representative for the study population. In addition, the prevalence of tooth loss in the study population was higher than the proportion used for the sample size calculation, which would require a smaller sample size than that calculated.”

22) How many recruited? What is the response rate?

Answer: Refusals and losses were negligible in the study population. As explained in item #21, this was not the reason why the sample size initially planned had not been reached.

23) For the outcome of tooth loss, age is very important. What is the average age? and adults? and the elderly?

Answer: This issue was previously answered. Please see comment #8.

24) It would be important in the description to average the missing teeth by subgroup (adult and elderly).

Answer: Subgroup analysis was not performed in the study (see comment #8).

25) Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated.

Answer: The paragraph has been rewritten in order to detail which contextual and individual variables were associated with the outcome.

Results, 3rd paragraph

Removed: “Table 3 shows the adjusted prevalence ratios, indicating the association of several contextual and individual variables with the outcome assessed. A higher number of missing teeth was found in older individuals, those who consumed more sugar at home and who had experienced dental pain over the past six months. Individuals who reported less tooth loss were those who declared their skin color as black or brown, those who benefit from the Bolsa Família program, those with a higher household income, those covered by the RHT, those who attended dental appointments over the past year, and those who reported satisfaction with their teeth/oral health.”

Added: “Table 3 shows the adjusted rate ratios, indicating the association of contextual characteristic of primary healthcare offered with self-reported number of missing teeth. Locations covered by riverine teams presented lower tooth loss than those covered by fluvial teams with CHW in a health facility in the territory. At individual level, a higher number of missing teeth was found in older individuals, those who consumed more sugar at home and who had experienced dental pain over the past six months. Individuals who reported less tooth loss were those who declared their skin color as black or brown, those who benefit from the Bolsa Família program, those with a higher household income, those who attended dental appointments over the past year, and those who reported satisfaction with their teeth/oral health.”

26) `(non-functional dentition)`= but if you lose 12 it would no longer be. It was confusing to use this concept for 20 teeth and not functional (the result is loss and not maintenance).

Answer: This issue was previously answered. Please see comment #9.

27) When you put the results of statistical tests, although they are widely used, you need to put them in the method, and not just in the result. Still, it is worth noting what the parameters would be for the reader's understanding.

Answer: Data analysis description has been improved in the Methods section.

Methods, 7th paragraph

“The data collected in the study were directly exported from REDCap to the database files of the Stata program. Initially, a descriptive analysis of the data was performed. In addition to the main outcome of interest, the number of missing teeth, dichotomous outcomes of total tooth loss (complete edentulism), severe tooth loss (up to 8 natural teeth) and non-functional dentition (less than 20 natural teeth) were also described. Then, Poisson regression analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with the number of missing teeth (count outcome), estimating the rate ratios and respective 95% confidence intervals. Poisson regression coefficients (β) can be interpreted as the log of the rate ratio. Thus, the rate ratio was obtained by exponentiating the Poisson regression coefficient. In the analyses, rate ratios represent the expected count outcome for X+1 divided by the expected count outcome for X. A multilevel modeling analysis was carried out to include the hierarchical structure or grouping of the study population in the respective territories. Variables with p-values lower than or equal to 0.20 in the bivariate analyses were included in the multiple analysis considering the hierarchy between individual and contextual variables in the model. The first model included only the contextual variables. The individual variables were included in the second model. Variables with p-values lower than or equal to 0.10 when included into the hierarchical model were maintained in the final model. The significance level adopted was 0.05.”

28) Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Answer: It was included as suggested by the reviewer.

29) In the analysis it would be important to change the reference category, so that the results do not show protection factor data. Confusing for discussion, greater chance and protection.

Answer: We fully agree with the reviewer, mainly for the individual characteristics. However, the authors faced challenges for solving this issue, which would involve using an unusual reference category for race/skin color and also using different references for the dichotomous categorical variables (for some variables, 'yes' and for others, 'no'), as can be seen in Table 3. In this way, the reference categories were maintained unchanged. But for the variable ‘Satisfaction with teeth/oral health’, the reference category was changed according to the reviewer's suggestion.

Tables

30) Put `location and date` in all table captions.

Answer: It was included as suggested by the reviewer.

31) Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Answer: It was included as suggested by the reviewer.

Table 1

32) Legend: `study participants` - be more specific = adults and elderly residents in rural riverside áreas.

Answer: It was modified as suggested by the reviewer.

Table 1, Title

Removed: “Contextual and individual characteristics of study participants.”

Added: “Contextual and individual characteristics of adults and elderly residents in rural riverside localities included in the study, Negro River, Manaus, Amazonas, 2019.”

Table 2 and 3

33) Legend: incidence = review

Answer: It was corrected, as explained in the response to the item #19.

34) Legend: independent variables - be more specific = contextual and individual

Answer: It was included as suggested by the reviewer.

35) IRR = review / put in the footer

Answer: It was corrected, as explained in the response to item #19.

Discussion

36) Include: `self-reported` tooth loss.

Answer: It was included throughout the text.

37) Make it more evident if individual or contextual factors are associated. The discussion follows the logic of first discussing individual factors and then contextual factors. Why didn't the method and tables follow the same order?

Answer: The discussion first addresses the contextual variable associated with the outcome (characteristic of primary healthcare offered, 3rd paragraph) and then the individual variables, aiming to respect the order presented in the Tables. More emphasis was given to this issue, as suggested by the reviewer.

38) Before putting on the results of tooth loss, I could put a paragraph on the characteristics of the sample. Does it match reality? More women? brown? Half-life adult age.

Answer: Aware of its relevance, the characterization of the sample was described in detail in the Results section. As the discussion is already too long, the authors opted to focus the Discussion section on the outcome of interest. Considering the sample design, the reality of the study population was reproduced, and the study has internal validity.

39) Avoid the use of numerical data that are equally repeated in the results topic.

Answer: Numerical results that were repeated in the Discussion section have been removed (mainly in the second paragraph).

40) In comparison with other studies, the location, age group and year of collection need to be clear.

Answer: In response to the reviewer's previous suggestions, this information have been clarified in the manuscript.

41) Third paragraph: What does it help / dialogue in understanding your findings? Looks like what's in the intro. You need to relate to your results.

Answer: The authors have decided to remove this paragraph as it did not contribute to build a robust discussion on the outcome of interest and its associated factors.

42) risk factor = review

Answer: The entire manuscript text was revised, as suggested by the reviewer. The only three mentions of ‘risk factors’ maintained in the text refer to the theoretical background or other studies.

43) There is a study of tooth loss in Brazil that can help in the interpretation of findings on age / use dental servisse and tooth loss: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/authors?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219240

Answer: The reference was inserted in the discussion of the study findings.

References

Added: 60. Silva Junior MF, Batista MJ, de Sousa MDLR. Risk factors for tooth loss in adults: A population-based prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219240.

44) The discussion of skin color will not resemble the context that has already been discussed about practices of access to mutilating services does not prevent tooth loss (topic of the type of health team). So, lack of access can keep teeth?

Answer: Thank you for this comment. In fact, the study showed that the dental service utilization had a protective effect against tooth loss at individual level. Thus, other unassessed variables might compose the complex explanation of this finding related to race/skin color. The reference was replaced, and the paragraph has been rewritten to make it suitable.

Discussion, 7th paragraph

Removed: “Black or brown individuals reported less tooth loss. Although this issue is particularly complex in the study population [70], many studies report racial inequities in tooth loss. Most of them point to a higher prevalence among blacks and browns [71,72], although there is evidence that it may be higher among whites [59]. Gilbert et al. [73] put this question in perspective. With the small exception of dental self-extractions [74], which happens in rural areas, the only way to experience tooth loss is through dental care. Therefore, there may be social determinants of tooth loss that operate in opposite directions: people with worse socioeconomic conditions and black or brown people may be at lower risk of tooth loss because they are less likely to have access to dental care, but once they do have access, they are at greater risk for tooth loss. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the total effect of race and socioeconomic status would need to take into account the effects of both, dividing the process into two steps [75].”

Added: “Black or brown individuals reported less tooth loss. Although this issue is particularly complex in the study population [71], many studies report racial inequities in tooth loss. Most of them point to a higher prevalence among blacks and browns [72,73], although there is evidence that it may be higher among whites [59]. Gilbert et al. [74] put this question in perspective, stating that a comprehensive understanding of the total effect of race and socioeconomic status would need to take into account the effects of both. The characteristics related to the type of service used may also differ according to race/skin color, and should also be considered once racial inequalities go beyond socioeconomic differences [75].”

References

Removed: “74. Gilbert GH, Duncan RP, Earls JL. Taking dental self-care to the extreme: 24-month incidence of dental self-extractions in the Florida Dental Care Study. J Public Health Dent. 1998; 58(2):131-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.1998.tb02497.x. PMID: 9729757.”

Added: “75. Constante HM. Racial inequalities in public dental service utilization: Exploring individual and contextual determinants among middle-aged Brazilian adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2020; 48(4):302-8. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12533. PMID: 32237080.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gaetano Isola

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-02459R1Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Herkrath,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gaetano Isola, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors should fully address all minor comments before the final assessment of the manuscript

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors work hard in the manuscript and letter to reply to the comments. Some points yet need to be discussed.

In the objective, I would like to read a shorter objective as: Objective: To identify contextual and individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.

I also emphasize that when the authors describe the health services in North Region, it is important to contextualize the problem is not to be dependent of public health service, but there is a problem of accessibility for health. There is a lack in health service include private service. Besides Brazil have a universal health service, there are difficulties to manage the financial resources (lack of resources) and also is a too big country and unequal. I think these points could be in discussion section. Please this fact clear in introduction.

In methods when the authors mentioned 2019 means January 2019 until December 2019?

I did not understand the sample calculation and sample selection. Why was the sample calculation 751 and 340 were estimated to be visited? Maybe is better make clear that the mean of people in each house is 2, and in order to reach the sample size that is calculated for individuals, 340 houses were selected.

In the methods it is important to make clear the way the variables were analyzed, if count or noun variables and the category to avoid confusion.

Were the examiners calibrated?

I understand the explanation for the variable missing teeth, but it will be interesting to observe which category is more prevalent in this population, non-functional dentition? More than 8 teeth? Edentulism? If the sum of the categories is 100% it would be better to comprehend the result and the distribution of the interest variable. If they are not mutually exclusive you cannot observe the real distribution.

In discussion, what is more than a quarter? 25%?

The conclusion needs to be rewritten in order to be based on the main results and answer the objective. What are the associated factors of tooth loos in individual and contextual factors?

Reviewer #2: The answers were answered satisfactorily. The study has methodological quality and is relevant above all because it is in a poorly studied and culturally differentiated population. The results can contribute to the planning of specific policies for this population. Congratulations on the work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marília Jesus Batista de Brito Mota

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 22;17(11):e0277845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277845.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Oct 2022

We thank the reviewers for their comments and/or suggestions, which helped to improve the manuscript. We have numbered their comments to organize the responses. We shall deal with each comment here:

Reviewer #1

The authors work hard in the manuscript and letter to reply to the comments. Some points yet need to be discussed.

1) In the objective, I would like to read a shorter objective as: Objective: To identify contextual and individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.

Answer: The study objective was rewritten, as suggested by the reviewer.

Abstract, Objective

Removed: “To identify the association between socioeconomic and service-related contextual factors and socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral and self-perceived oral health individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Added: “To identify contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Introduction, last paragraph

Removed: “Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate the association of socioeconomic and service-related contextual factors and socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral and self-perceived oral health individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

Added: “Thus, the aim of the study was to evaluate the association of contextual and individual factors with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly people living in rural riverside areas.”

2) I also emphasize that when the authors describe the health services in North Region, it is important to contextualize the problem is not to be dependent of public health service, but there is a problem of accessibility for health. There is a lack in health service include private service. Besides Brazil have a universal health service, there are difficulties to manage the financial resources (lack of resources) and also is a too big country and unequal. I think these points could be in discussion section. Please this fact clear in introduction.

Answer: Certainly, the issues raised are relevant to the understanding of access to health services in the North region. The low availability of services (public and private), added to geographic and financial barriers, and other social and organizational aspects (such as accommodation and acceptability), depicts a challenging scenario in such an unequal country. These aspects were addressed in the Introduction and in the Discussion section of the manuscript.

Introduction, 5th paragraph

Removed: “Contextual characteristics of geographic location contributes to inequalities between rural and urban areas, both in general and oral health. The urban environment can mitigate the negative aspects present in the rural environment, such as geographic barriers, socioeconomic deprivation, and limited access to health services [31-35]. Despite having a strong dependence on public healthcare services [36], the physical network of services is inadequate and health professionals are lacking in rural areas in Brazil [37]. The northern region of Brazil has the worst rates of use of health services in the country [38]. Health policies in the region lack institutional structure, continuity, and sensitivity to regional specificities. To the limited provision and organization of healthcare of services clinics are associated low income, population dispersion, the large geographic distances and other barriers to access typical of the Amazon region [39-41].”

Added: “Contextual characteristics of geographic location contributes to inequalities between rural and urban areas, both in general and oral health. The urban environment can mitigate the negative aspects present in the rural environment, such as geographic barriers, socioeconomic deprivation, and limited access to health services [31-35]. Brazil is a large and unequal country, and the northern region has the worst rates of use of health services in the country [38]. Despite having a strong dependence on public healthcare services [36], the physical network of public and private services is inadequate and health professionals are lacking in rural areas in Brazil [37]. Health policies in the region lack institutional structure, continuity, and sensitivity to regional specificities. In addition to the limited provision and organization of healthcare of services clinics, there are low income, population dispersion, the large geographic distances and other barriers to access typical of the Amazon region [39-41].”

Discussion, 3rd paragraph

Maintained: “This would contribute to a more rational use of the limited human, financial and structural resources characteristic of the northern region of Brazil and also to a greater resoluteness of health care [39-40].”

Discussion, 9th paragraph

Added: “A family with better financial resources is also more able to overcome low availability and other barriers to accessing health services [39-41,50].”

3) In methods when the authors mentioned 2019 means January 2019 until December 2019?

Answer: Information about the months has been added to the Methods section.

Methods, 1st paragraph

Removed: “A household-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2019 in rural riverside localities…”

Added: “A household-based cross-sectional survey was conducted from March to July 2019 in rural riverside localities…”

4) I did not understand the sample calculation and sample selection. Why was the sample calculation 751 and 340 were estimated to be visited? Maybe is better make clear that the mean of people in each house is 2, and in order to reach the sample size that is calculated for individuals, 340 houses were selected.

Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, the explanation was added in the paragraph of the sample calculation, in order to make it clearer.

Methods, 2nd paragraph

Removed: “Considering the probability of finding individuals from each group within households, a number of 340 households were estimated to be visited in the study…”

Added: “Considering the probability of finding individuals from each group within households (average of 2.215 adults per household), a number of 340 households were estimated to be visited in the study…”

5) In the methods it is important to make clear the way the variables were analyzed, if count or noun variables and the category to avoid confusion.

Answer: The dependent variable, number of missing teeth, was evaluated as a count outcome, as also described in the Methods section. Information on independent variables was added to the text, as suggested by the reviewer.

Methods, 5th and 6th paragraphs

Removed: Independent variables were selected according to the theoretical background presented on the determinants of tooth loss. Contextual variables included for each territory were per capita income, average household income, poverty (family income less than US$ 5.50 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) rates, Gini index of per capita income and household income. These variables were calculated based on information from the households evaluated in the territories. Characteristic of primary healthcare was also assessed at a contextual level, including: 1) locations covered by fluvial health teams (FHT) and CHW, with health unit in the community, 2) locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community, 3) locations only covered by CHW, and 4) locations covered by riverside health teams (RHT).

Individual characteristics were sex, age, race/skin color, household income, registration in the Bolsa Família program (Brazilian conditional cash transfer program for low-income families), occupation (yes/no), monthly sugar consumption of family, time since last dental appointment, dental pain over the past six months (yes/no) and satisfaction with teeth/oral health. Time since last dental appointment was evaluated according to the categories: over the past 12 months, more than 1 year up to 2 years ago, more than 2 years up to 3 years ago, more than 3 years ago, and never have been to the dentist. Satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Sugar consumption was evaluated through the availability inferred by the frequency of monthly purchases of sugary foods at home.”

Added: “Independent variables were selected according to the theoretical background presented on the determinants of tooth loss. Contextual variables included for each territory were per capita income, average household income, poverty (family income less than US$ 5.50 per day) and extreme poverty (family income less than US$ 1.90 per day) rates, Gini index of per capita income and household income. These continuous numeric variables were calculated based on information from the households evaluated in the territories. Characteristic of primary healthcare was also assessed at a contextual level using a nominal categorical variable, including: 1) locations covered by fluvial health teams (FHT) and CHW, with health unit in the community, 2) locations covered by FHT and CHW, without health unit in the community, 3) locations only covered by CHW, and 4) locations covered by riverside health teams (RHT).

Individual characteristics were sex (male/female), age (discrete numeric variable), race/skin color (white/black/brown/Asiatic/indigenous), household income (continuous numeric variable), registration (yes/no) in the Bolsa Família program (Brazilian conditional cash transfer program for low-income families), occupation (yes/no), monthly sugar consumption of family, time since last dental appointment, dental pain over the past six months (yes/no) and satisfaction with teeth/oral health. Time since last dental appointment was evaluated according to the categories: over the past 12 months, more than 1 year up to 2 years ago, more than 2 years up to 3 years ago, more than 3 years ago, and never have been to the dentist. Satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Sugar consumption was evaluated in kilograms (continuous numeric variable) through the availability inferred by the frequency of monthly purchases of sugary foods at home.”

6) Were the examiners calibrated?

Answer: As the survey was conducted with closed-ended interview questions, the answers to which were reported by the participants, the examiners were trained, and a pilot study was carried out in rural communities not involved in the main study. No clinical measurement was performed in the study.

Methods, 4th paragraph

“After 40 hours of theoretical and practical training, a pilot study was conducted in two rural communities, from territories other than those included in the main study.”

7) I understand the explanation for the variable missing teeth, but it will be interesting to observe which category is more prevalent in this population, non-functional dentition? More than 8 teeth? Edentulism? If the sum of the categories is 100% it would be better to comprehend the result and the distribution of the interest variable. If they are not mutually exclusive you cannot observe the real distribution.

Answer: The number of missing teeth, a discrete numerical variable (count outcome) was the main outcome of interest for the study. The other dichotomous outcomes (edentulism, severe tooth loss and non-functional dentition) were also described to portray the rural riverine population tooth loss scenario more comprehensively. As described in the Methods section and noticed by the reviewer, these categories are not mutually exclusive, and for this reason they were not presented in this way. An edentulous individual certainly did not also have a functional dentition. These classifications of tooth loss have been widely used in studies on tooth loss and were reproduced in the same way in the present study. With mutually exclusive categories (if applicable), of the 27.4% who had non-functional dentition, excluding 12.1% of edentulous, the remaining 15.3% would be divided into severe tooth loss (7.5%) and non-functional dentition (7.8%). We emphasize that, even if not presented in the text, these values can still be calculated when evaluating the difference between the frequencies of the not mutually exclusive categories, in a sequential way (e.g., 27.4-19.6=7.8%, 19.6-12.1=7.5%).

Parker ML, Thornton-Evans G, Wei L, Griffin SO. Prevalence of and Changes in Tooth Loss Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years with Selected Chronic Conditions - United States, 1999-2004 and 2011-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 29;69(21): 641-646.

Ribeiro CG, Cascaes AM, Silva AE, Seerig LM, Nascimento GG, Demarco FF. Edentulism, Severe Tooth Loss and Lack of Functional Dentition in Elders: A Study in Southern Brazil. Braz Dent J. 2016 May-Jun;27(3): 345-52.

Peres MA, Lalloo R. Tooth loss, denture wearing and implants: Findings from the National Study of Adult Oral Health 2017-18. Aust Dent J. 2020 Jun;65 Suppl 1: S23-S31.

Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global Burden of Severe Tooth Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Jul;93(7 Suppl): 20S-28S.

8) In discussion, what is more than a quarter? 25%?

Answer: 27.4% of adults had non-functional dentition. The intention was not to repeat the numerical value already presented in the Results section, but to draw attention to its expressiveness within the sample. In view of the reviewer's question, the sentence was rewritten.

Discussion, 2nd paragraph

Removed: “…and more than a quarter presented non-functional dentition.”

Added: “…and approximately 27% presented non-functional dentition.”

9) The conclusion needs to be rewritten in order to be based on the main results and answer the objective. What are the associated factors of tooth loos in individual and contextual factors?

Answer: The authors agree with the reviewer. When the last paragraph of the discussion was reorganized to become the conclusion during the review process, it ended up that way. So, the conclusion was now rewritten based on the study objectives and the main results, as well as pointing out at the end some implications of the study findings, as also suggested throughout the review process.

Conclusions

Added: “The study population presented a high number of self-reported missing teeth. The presence of RHT was a contextual protective factor for tooth loss. As for individual factors, older age, white race/skin color, lower family income, non-inclusion in the Brazilian cash transfer program, higher sugar consumption, dental pain, worse self-perceived oral health and not having had a dental appointment over the past year were associated with a higher number of missing teeth.”

Reviewer #2

The answers were answered satisfactorily. The study has methodological quality and is relevant above all because it is in a poorly studied and culturally differentiated population. The results can contribute to the planning of specific policies for this population. Congratulations on the work.

Answer: The authors are grateful for the reviewer's suggestions, which contributed to improving the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Gaetano Isola

4 Nov 2022

Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based survey

PONE-D-22-02459R2

Dear Dr. Herkrath,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gaetano Isola, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for considering the points I have discussed. The manuscript Is very relevant and will bring more light for this population that is not well studied.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Marília Jesus Batista

**********

Acceptance letter

Gaetano Isola

14 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-02459R2

Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based survey

Dear Dr. Herkrath:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Gaetano Isola

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework: Herkrath, F. J. (2022, October 11). “Contextual and individual factors associated with self-reported tooth loss among adults and elderly residents in rural riverside areas: a cross-sectional household-based survey”. Retrieved from www.osf.io/6sjf9.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES