Access to dental care barriers and poor clinical oral health in Australian regional populations.

BACKGROUND: This paper investigated the associations between oral health with behavioural, demographic, periodontitis risk, financial and access to dental care barriers and compared the results in three Australian regional areas. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Australian National Study of Adult Oral Health (2017-18). Oral health status was measured using DMFT-score, and mean numbers of decayed, missing or filled teeth and periodontitis prevalence using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) Periodontal Classification. The analysis included these dependent variables by three regional areas, seven socio-demographic variables, two periodontal disease risk factors, two preventive dental behaviours, two barriers to dental care and three access to dental care variables. RESULTS: Of the 15,731 people interviewed, 5,022 were examined. There was no significant difference in periodontitis prevalence between the regions. All the socio-demographic characteristics, periodontal disease risk factors and preventive dental behaviours were significantly associated with at least one of the dental caries indicators. In multivariable analysis, there was no significant association between regional location with any of the four clinical dental caries variables. CONCLUSION: Poorer oral health outside major cities was associated with household income, education level, higher smoking, usual reason for and frequency of dental visiting.

Does optimal access to dental care counteract the oral health-related quality of life social gradient?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine if an oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) social gradient existed when Australian Defence Force (ADF) members have universal and optimal access to dental care. METHODS: A nominal roll included 4089 individuals who were deployed to the Solomon Islands as part of Operation ANODE and a comparison group of 4092 ADF personnel frequency matched to the deployed group on gender, age group and service type, from which 500 deployed and 500 comparison individuals were randomly selected. The dependent variables were the OHIP-14 summary measures. Rank was used to determine socioeconomic status. The demographic variables selected were: gender and age. RESULTS: The response rate was 44%. Of the individual OHIP-14 items, being self-conscious, painful aching and having discomfort when eating were the most common problems. Mean OHIP-14 severity was 2.8. In bivariate analysis, there was not a significant difference in mean OHIP-14 severity (p = 0.52) or frequency of OHIP-14 impacts (p = 0.57) by military rank. There was a significant increasing OHIP-14 extent score from commissioned officer to non-commissioned officer to other ranks (0.07, 0.19, 0.40, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Even with optimal access to dental care, there was an OHRQoL social gradient between military ranks in the ADF.

Does lower lifetime fluoridation exposure explain why people outside capital cities have poor clinical oral health?

BACKGROUND: Australians outside state capital cities have greater caries experience than their counterparts in capital cities. We hypothesized that differing water fluoridation exposure was associated with this disparity. METHODS: Data were the 2004-06 Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health. Examiners measured participant decayed, missing and filled teeth and DMFT Index, and lifetime fluoridation exposure was quantified. Multivariable linear regression models estimated differences in caries experience between capital city residents and others, with and without adjustment for fluoridation exposure. RESULTS: There was greater mean lifetime fluoridation exposure in state capital cities (59.1%, 95% confidence interval = 56.9, 61.4) than outside capital cities (42.3, confidence interval = 36.9, 47.6). People located outside capital city areas had differing sociodemographic characteristics and dental visiting patterns, and a higher mean DMFT (capital cities = 12.9, non-capital cities = 14.3, p = 0.02), than people from capital cities. After adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics and dental visits, DMFT of people living in capital cities was less than non-capital city residents (regression coefficient = 0.8, p = 0.01). The disparity was no longer statistically significant (regression coefficient = 0.6, p = 0.09) after additional adjustment for fluoridation exposure.

The effect of lifetime fluoridation exposure on dental caries experience of younger rural adults.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to confirm whether the level of lifetime fluoridation exposure is associated with lower dental caries experience in younger adults (15-46 years). METHODS: Data of the cohort born between 1960 and 1990 residing outside Australia's capital cities from the 2004-2006 Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health were analysed. Residential history questionnaires were used to determine the percentage of each person's lifetime exposure to fluoridated water (<50%/50+%). Examiners recorded decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth (DMFT). Socio-demographic variables, periodontal risk factors, and access to dental care were included in multivariable least-squares regression models. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, the higher level of fluoridation category had significantly lower DMFT (mean 6.01 [SE=0.62]) than the lower level of fluoridation group (9.14 [SE=0.73] p<0.01) and lower numbers of filled teeth (4.08 [SE=0.43], 7.06 [SE=0.62], p<0.01). In multivariate analysis, the higher number of full-time equivalent dentists per 100,000 people was associated with a lower mean number of missing teeth (regression coefficient estimate=-1.75, p=0.03), and the higher level of water fluoridation with a lower mean DMFT (-2.45, p<0.01) and mean number of filled teeth (-2.52, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The higher level of lifetime fluoridation exposure was associated with substantially lower caries experience in younger rural adults, largely due to a lower number of filled teeth.

Will improving access to dental care improve oral health-related quality of life?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine if Australian Defence Force (ADF) members had better oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) than the general Australian population and whether the difference was due to better access to dental care. METHODS: The OHRQoL, as measured by OHIP-14 summary indicators, of participants from the Defence Deployed Solomon Islands (SI) Health Study and the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06 (NSAOH) were compared. The SI sample was age/gender status-adjusted to match that of the NSAOH sample which was age/gender/regional location weighted to that of the Australian population. RESULTS: NSAOH respondents with good access to dental care had lower OHIP-14 summary measures [frequency of impacts 8.5% (95% CI = 5.4, 11.6), extent mean = 0.16 (0.11, 0.22), severity mean = 5.0 (4.4, 5.6)] than the total NSAOH sample [frequency 18.6 (16.6, 20.7); extent 0.52 (0.44, 0.59); severity 7.6 (7.1, 8.1)]. The NSAOH respondents with both good access to dental care and self-reported good general health did not have as low OHIP-14 summary scores as in the SI sample [frequency 2.6 (1.2, 5.4), extent 0.05 (0.01, 0.10); severity 2.6 (1.9, 3.4)]. CONCLUSIONS: ADF members had better OHRQoL than the general Australian population, even those with good access to dental care and self-reported good general health.

Is poor access to dental care why people outside capital cities have poor oral health?

BACKGROUND: Why oral health status outside capital cities is poorer than that in capital cities has not been satisfactorily explained. The aim of this study was to determine if the reason was poorer access to dental care. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health (2004-06). Oral health status was measured by DMFT Index, and numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth. A two-step analysis was undertaken: comparing the dependent variables by location, socio-demographic confounders and preventive dental behaviours, and then including six access to dental care variables. RESULTS: Of the 14 123 people interviewed, 5505 were examined, and 4170 completed the questionnaire. With socio-economic parameters in the first regression model, non-capital city people had higher DMFT (regression coefficient = 1.15, p < 0.01), more decayed (0.42, p < 0.01) and missing teeth (0.85, p < 0.01), but not filled teeth (-0.11, p = 0.71), than capital city based people. In the second step analysis, non-capital city people still had a greater DMFT (1.01, p < 0.01), more decayed (0.27, p = 0.03) and missing teeth (0.74, p < 0.01), but not filled teeth (0.00, p = 0.99) than capital city based people. CONCLUSIONS: Access to dental care was not the only reason why people outside capital cities have poorer oral health than people living in capital cities.

Is self interdental cleaning associated with dental plaque levels, dental calculus, gingivitis and periodontal disease?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether interdental cleaning behaviours of Australian adults were associated with lower levels of plaque, gingivitis and periodontal disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06. Outcome variables were three indicators of oral hygiene outcomes (the presence or not of dental plaque, dental calculus and gingivitis) and two of periodontal disease (the presence or not of at least one tooth with a periodontal pocket or clinical attachment loss of ≥ 4 mm). The independent variable was classified into the following three groups: regularly clean interproximally 'at least daily' (daily+); 'less than daily' (< daily); and 'do not regularly clean interproximally' (reference group). Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to calculate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) relative to the reference group, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Regular self interdental cleaning was associated with less dental plaque (< daily, PR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.84, 0.95; and daily+, PR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82, 0.96), less dental calculus (< daily, PR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.97; and daily+, PR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70, 0.89) and lower levels of moderate/severe gingivitis (daily+, PR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.77, 0.94). Periodontal pocketing was less likely for the < daily group (PR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.82), but was not associated with daily+ cleaning (PR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.663, 1.49). There was not a significant association between interdental cleaning and clinical attachment loss (< daily, PR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.77, 1.05; and daily+, PR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.95, 1.44). CONCLUSION: Regular interdental cleaning was associated with better oral hygiene outcomes, such as dental plaque and gingivitis, although there was no significant association between regular interdental cleaning and clinical attachment loss.

The relationship between dental care and perceived oral health impacts.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the effect of dental care and dental visiting behavior on oral health impacts is important for effective resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between dental care, including the reason for dental attendance and time since last dental visit, with perceived oral health impacts among Australian adults. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Australian National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004/06. Analysis was limited to 4,170 dentate adults who answered the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questions. Prevalence of frequent impacts was defined as the percentage of people reporting 'fairly often' or 'very often' to one or more of the OHIP-14 questions. RESULTS: Over half the dentate Australians (63.0%) visited a dentist in the past year. Unadjusted analysis showed a statistically significant association between the prevalence of frequent impacts and receipt of: extractions (prevalence ratio = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2-2.2), scale/clean (0.7, 0.5-0.8), and denture care (1.6, 1.1-2.4). After adjustment for the usual reason for dental attendance there was no effect of any of the three treatments or the time since last visit on the prevalence of frequent impacts. CONCLUSION: The usual reason for dental attendance, and not the time since last visit or the type of dental care supplied, accounted for differences in perceived oral health impacts.

Relative oral health outcome trends between people inside and outside capital city areas of Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate relative change over 17 years in clinical oral health outcomes inside and outside capital city areas of Australia. METHODS: Using data from the National Oral Health Survey of Australia 1987-88 and the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06, relative trends in clinical oral health outcomes inside and outside capital city areas were measured by age and gender standardized changes in the percentage of edentate people and dentate adults with less than 21 teeth, in mean numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth, and mean DMFT index. RESULTS: There were similar reductions inside and outside capital city areas in the percentage of edentate people (capital city 63.7%, outside capital city 60.7%) and dentate people with less than 21 teeth (52.5%, 50.1%), in the mean number of missing teeth (34.3%, 34.5%), filled teeth (0.0%, increase of 5.5%), and mean DMFT index (21.2%, 19.2%). The reduction in mean number of decayed teeth was greater in capital city areas (78.0%) than outside capital city areas (50.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Trends in four of the five clinical oral health outcomes demonstrated improvements in oral health that were of a similar magnitude inside and outside capital city areas of Australia.

Comparison of adult oral health in Australia, the USA, Germany and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Australian adults reportedly have poor oral health when compared to 28 other OECD countries. The Australian ranking was based on edentulism and caries experience data from selected age groups that apparently were collected in 1987-88. The objective of this study was to compare the oral health of Australian adults with that of three other western countries that have comprehensive oral health survey data. METHODS: Published data were obtained from the NHANES 2003-2004, the Fourth German Oral Health Study 2005 and the UK Adult Dental Health Survey 1998. Data from the Australian NSAOH 2004-06 were analysed to generate comparable age-specific estimates using nine dental clinical indicators, two measures of oral hygiene behaviour and two of dental attendance. RESULTS: Australia had the best oral health based on two clinical indicators, was equal first on three indicators and ranked second in the remaining clinical indicators. Australia ranked first or second based on dental flossing, use of mouthwash and frequency of dental attendance. CONCLUSIONS: The oral health of the Australian adult population was among the best of the four nations studied.