Self-report oral health and disease experience among adults in China and NZ.

OBJECTIVES: Differences in oral health perceptions complicate comparisons of self-reported oral health in countries with considerably different cultures, traditions, and dental care. We compared it in China and New Zealand (NZ), to determine whether adults in those countries differ in how self-report oral health item responses distinguish those with different clinical oral disease states. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of representative data on dentate 35-44-year-olds and 65-74-year-olds from the 3rd National Oral Health Survey of China in 2005 (for Sichuan province) and the NZ Oral Health Survey in 2009. Self-rated oral health in the Chinese survey was assessed by asking "Overall, how would you rate your oral health?"(responses: "Very poor," "Poor," "Fair," "Good," and "Very good"). The NZ survey asked "How would you describe the health of your teeth or mouth?" (responses: "Excellent," "Very good," "Good," "Fair," or "Poor"). To enable comparability, these were combined to create a four-category ordinal measure of self-reported oral health. The slope index of inequality (SII) and the relative index of inequality (RII) determined the extent to which the four-category self-report item distinguished those with better or poorer oral status. RESULTS: A higher proportion of Chinese than NZ 35-44-year-olds rated their oral health as poor or fair, and the NZ proportion rating their oral health as very good was four times that observed among Chinese. The 65-74-year-olds differed even more in their overall responses. For most aspects of clinical disease experience, the two populations were responding similarly to the self-reported oral health item, although the SII and RII values were more pronounced among 35-44-year-olds in NZ than in China; among 65-74-year-olds, both countries were more similar. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese and NZ adults' self-ratings reflect their oral disease experience in largely similar ways, despite considerable absolute differences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings support the cross-cultural applicability of self-report oral health measures.

Changes in Use of Prenatal Dental Care After Brazil's Incentive Policy.

In 2020, the Brazilian federal government launched the "Prevent Brazil" program to incentivize cities to improve their performance across 7 health care indicators, including prenatal dental care. Our study examines the impact of this policy on the use of oral health care among pregnant women in Brazil. We used a series of cross-sectional data from the Brazilian Public Health System from 2018 to 2023. We linked publicly available data from the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Our outcome was the proportion of pregnant women receiving prenatal care who had at least 1 dental visit during the past year. Covariates included city-level socioeconomic (income and literacy), demographic (gender, race, and urban areas), and workforce variables (number of dentists working in the public health system per city/year). We estimated the impact of the policy on prenatal dental visits nationwide and stratified by geographic region using interrupted time-series analysis. Our analyses included 99.9% of all Brazilian cities (n = 5,562). The use of oral health care among pregnant women increased from 15% in 2018 to 69% in 2023. Adjusted estimates show that, after initiation of the Prevent Brazil, dental care use among pregnant women increased nationally at a rate of 4.6 percentage points per 4-mo period (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5; 4.7). The policy's largest impact was in the North and Northeast regions, which have the lowest socioeconomic profiles (adjusted time-series rate 5.7 [95% CI 5.3; 6.1] and 5.2 [5.0; 5.4] percent points, respectively). Our findings support the positive impact of the Prevent Brazil policy on prenatal dental care in Brazil. The policy was associated with a countrywide improvement in prenatal dental care use, with a greater impact in socioeconomically disadvantaged regions.

Trends in Dental Implant Use in the U.S., 1999-2016, and Projections to 2026.

Dental implants have become an increasingly popular treatment choice for replacing missing teeth. Yet, little is known about the prevalence and sociodemographic distribution of dental implant use in the United States. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed data from 7 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2016. We estimated dental implant prevalence among adults missing any teeth for each survey period overall as stratified by sociodemographic characteristics. We calculated absolute and relative differences from 1999-2000 to 2015-2016 and fit logistic regression models to estimate changes over time. We also used multivariable logistic regression to estimate independent associations of sociodemographic covariates with the presence of any implant. We projected the proportion of patients treated with dental implants into the year 2026 under varying assumptions of how the temporal trend would continue. There has been a large increase in the prevalence of dental implants, from 0.7% in 1999 to 2000 to 5.7% in 2015 to 2016. The largest absolute increase in prevalence (12.9%) was among individuals 65 to 74 y old, whereas the largest relative increase was ~1,000% among those 55 to 64 y old. There was an average covariate-adjusted increase in dental implant prevalence of 14% per year (95% CI, 11% to 18%). Having private insurance (vs. none or public insurance) or more than a high school education (vs. high school or less) was each associated with a 2-fold increase in prevalence, with an almost 13-fold (95% CI, 8 to21) increase for older adults. Dental implant prevalence projected to 2026 ranged from 5.7% in the most conservative scenario to 23% in the least. This study demonstrates that dental implant prevalence among US adults with missing teeth has substantially increased since 1999. Yet access overall is still very low, and prevalence was consistently higher among more advantaged groups.

Inequalities in Indigenous Oral Health: Findings from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada

The objective was to compare absolute differences in the prevalence of Indigenous-related inequalities in dental disease experience and self-rated oral health in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Data were sourced from national oral health surveys in Australia (2004 to 2006), Canada (2007 to 2009), and New Zealand (2009). Participants were aged ≥18 y. The authors measured age- and sex-adjusted inequalities by estimating absolute prevalence differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Clinical measures included the prevalence of untreated decayed teeth, missing teeth, and filled teeth; self-reported measures included the prevalence of "fair" or "poor" self-rated oral health. The overall pattern of Indigenous disadvantage was similar across all countries. The summary estimates for the adjusted prevalence differences were as follows: 16.5 (95% CI: 11.1 to 21.9) for decayed teeth (all countries combined), 18.2 (95% CI: 12.5 to 24.0) for missing teeth, 0.8 (95% CI: -1.9 to 3.5) for filled teeth, and 17.5 (95% CI: 11.3 to 23.6) for fair/poor self-rated oral health. The I2 estimates were small for each outcome: 0.0% for decayed, missing, and filled teeth and 11.6% for fair/poor self-rated oral health. Irrespective of country, when compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts, Indigenous persons had more untreated dental caries and missing teeth, fewer teeth that had been restored (with the exception of Canada), and a higher proportion reporting fair/poor self-rated oral health. There were no discernible differences among the 3 countries.

Socio-economic inequalities and oral health in Canada and the United States.

This paper describes and compares the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in oral health among adults in Canada and the US over the past 35 years. We analyzed data from nationally representative examination surveys in Canada and the US: Nutrition Canada National Survey (1970-1972, N = 11,546), Canadian Health Measures Survey (2007-2009, N = 3,508), The First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1971-1974, N = 13,131), and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2007-2008, N = 5,707). Oral health outcomes examined were prevalence of edentulism, proportion of individuals having at least 1 untreated decayed tooth, and proportion of individuals having at least 1 filled tooth. Sociodemographic indicators included in our analysis were place of birth, education, and income. Data were age-adjusted, and survey weights were used to account for the complex survey design in making population inferences. Our findings demonstrate that oral health outcomes have improved for adults in both countries. In the 1970s, Canada had a higher prevalence of edentulism and dental decay and lower prevalence of filled teeth. This was also combined with a more pronounced social inequality gradient among place of birth, education, and income groups. Over time, both countries demonstrated a decline in absolute socio-economic inequalities in oral health.