4.1 Article

Trends in the prevalence of traumatic dental injuries in Brazilian preschool children

期刊

DENTAL TRAUMATOLOGY
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 594-598

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2009.00826.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this paper was to report trends in traumatic dental injuries (TDI) in preschool children in Brazil between 2002 and 2006, and assess whether gender, family structure, and socio-economic differences in TDI are significant, and confirm the relationship between TDI and anatomic predisposing factors such as overjet and lip coverage. Methods: Three cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2002, 2004 and 2006 in Diadema using the same protocol. It was estimated that a minimum sample size of 778 5-59 months old children was required to achieve a level of precision with a standard error of < 2% Participants were systematically selected from all children attending the National Day of Children's Vaccination carried out in the city of Diadema. The criteria used to assess TDIs were a modified version of Ellis' classification. Results: There was a significant increase in TDIs between 2002 and 2006 (47.9%, P = 0.002). The prevalence of TDIs was 9.4% (95% CI 7.63, 11.42) in 2002, 12.9% (95% CI 11.06, 14.96) in 2004, and 13.9% (95% CI 12.03, 15.84) in 2006 in 5-59 months old children and the treatment of TDI was seriously neglected. There was no significant gender, family structure, and socio-economic differences in the prevalence of TDIs. The relationship between TDI and anatomic predisposing factors such as overjet, lip coverage, and anterior overbite was highly statistically significant (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The prevalence of TDIs in preschool children in Diadema increased between 2002 and 2006, the treatment of TDIs was neglected, thus it is crucial to generate considerable efforts to implement health promotion strategies to reverse the observed trends and to provide treatment to TDIs to prevent their biologic and psychologic consequences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据