Skip to main content

Table 4 The prevalence of oral conditions in the intervention and the control group at 5 years of age. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values for unadjusted and final logistic regression model for having oral conditions in the intervention compared to the control group

From: Effectiveness of an oral health intervention program for children with congenital heart defects

 

Intervention group (n = 75)

Control group (n = 67)

Unadjusted model

Final model

 

Valid observations

N (%)

Valid observations

N (%)

OR (CI)

p-value

OR (CI)

p-value

Caries tooth level

Caries into dentine,

missed or filled (d3–5mf)

75

19 (25.3)

67

17 (25.4)

0.998 (0.468,2.128)

0.996

1.067 (0.466,2.445)

0.878a

Enamel caries (d1–2)

75

21 (28.0)

67

19 (28.4)

    

Dentine caries (d3–5)

75

14 (18.7)

67

16 (23.9)

    

Missed due to caries

75

0 (0.0)

67

2 (3.0)

    

Filled

75

11 (14.7)

67

4 (6.0)

    

d1-5mf

75

29 (38.7)

67

25 (37.3)

    

Erosion close to or into the dentine (grade 3–4)

72

16 (22.2)

61

12 (19.7)

1.167 (0.503,2.705)

0.719

1.120 (0.417,3.013)

0.822b

Erosion total (grade 1–4)

72

54 (75.0)

61

34 (55.7)

    

Plaque on at least one of index teeth

73

43 (58.9)

66

59 (89.4)

0.170 (0.068,0.423)

< 0.001

0.173 (0.064,0.468)

0.001c

Gingival bleeding around one of index teeth

71

3 (4.2)

61

13 (21.3)

0.163 (0.044,0.603)

0.007

0.152 (0.038,0.604)

0.007d

  1. Adjusted for: a brushing habit and sugar water, b brushing habit and heart medication, c brushing habit and diet habit, d diet habit and parents origin
  2. p < 0.01