4.2 Article

Relationship between caries, gingivitis and fluorosis and the socioeconomic status among school children

Journal

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 170-176

Publisher

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102001000200011

Keywords

dental caries, epidemiology; gingivitis, epidemiology; fluorosis, dental, epidemiology; socioeconomic factors; students; dental health surveys; school health; cross-sectional studies; DMF Index; educational status; per capita income

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the relationship between the socioeconomic status and dental caries, gingivitis and fluorosis among: Brazilian school children. Methods One thousand students aged 12 from private and public schools M ere examined. The indexes used were DMFT or S (Decayed. Missing: and Filled Teeth or Surfaces Index). BI (Bleeding Index) and TFI (Thylstrup and Feverskov Index). The socioeconomic level was determined according family income and parents' educational level. Results Parents' educational level data revealed a strong Pearson's correlation, with income. No correlation was observed between dental caries prevalence. gingivitis and fluorosis and the studied social economic variables. The DMFT in private schools, was 1.54 +/-2.02. and in public schools was 2.48 +/-2.51. BI was 14.7%+/- 12.7% in private schools and 21.7%+/- 17.% in public ones. The prevalence of fluorosis was 60.8% and 49.9%, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (p <0.05). Individuals with a larger number of decayed surfaces and the ones with a larger percent of bleeding surfaces were seen in public schools. Conclusions The socioeconomic level variables, income and parents' educational level, did not correlate with the events analyzed in the study. Other socioeconomic variables probably contributed to the observed differences between students from private and public schools.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available