Skip to main content

Table 6 Multiple linear regression for the effects of oral health measures on the oral impact scores of daily performances after adjusting for the significant covariates (N = 700)

From: Exploring associations between oral health measures and oral health-impacted daily performances in 12–14-year-old schoolchildren

Decay severity

Adjusted RC (95% CI)

1 + Performance—OIS

Eating- OIS

Sleeping- OIS

Study- OIS

Social contact- OIS

Decay severity (DT)

2.4 (2.15, 2.68)2

0.4 (0.39, 0.52)2

0.4 (0.39, 0.52)2

0.5 (0.46, 0.59)2

0.3 (0.23, 0.32)2

Gender (male)

1.3 (0.31, 1.94)1

0.3 (0.11, 0.51)1

0.1 (0.00, 0.30)1

Location (rural)

 − 2.1 (− 2.95, − 1.22)2

 − 0.2 (− 0.44, − 0.02)1

 − 0.3 (− 0.53, − 0.10)1

 − 0.8 (− 0.99, − 0.57)2

 − 0.3 (− 0.44, − 0.13)2

Frequency of brushing

 − 3.7 (− 4.41, − 3.07)2

 − 0.4 (− 0.55, − 0.22)2

 − 0.7 (− .0.91, − 0.57)2

 − 1.3 (− 1.49, − 1.16)2

 − 0.3 (− 0.42, − 0.18)2

Dental visit

1.2 (0.94, 1.61)2

0.2 (0.13, 0.32)2

0.3 (0.23, 0.43)2

0.2 (0.13, 0.32)2

OH factors

Adjusted RC (95% CI)1

1 + Performance—OIS

Eating—OIS

Sleeping—OIS

Study—OIS

Social contact—OIS

Clinical problems

Decay severity (DT)

2.4 (2.15, 2.68)2,GLFD

0.4 (0.37, 0.50)2,EFD

0.5 (0.39, 0.52)2,EFDLZG

0.5 (0.46, 0.59)2,DFZMLG

0.3 (0.22, 0.32)2,DFZMXLG

Missing severity (MT)

 − 0.9 (− 1.28, − 0.58)2,LFD

 − 0.2 (− 0.28, − 0.10)2,EFDL

 − 0.1 (− 0.20, − 0.03)1,FDLZ

 − 0.2 (− 0.31, − 0.14)2,DFZXLG

 − 0.10 (− 0.15, − 0.03)2,DFZMXL

Filled severity (FT)

 − 1.1 (− 1.38, − 0.73)2,GLFD

 − 0.2 (− 0.26, − 0.12)2,EFDLZ

 − 0.1 (− 0.23, − 0.10)2,FDLZ

 − 0.2 (− 0.31, − 0.16)2,DFZLG

 − 0.2 (− 0.24, − 0.13)2,DFZXLG

Decay prevalence (1 + D)

10.0 (8.99, 10.96)2,GLFD

1.7 (1.42, 1.94)2,EFDL

2.0 (1.79, 2.30)2,FDLZ

2.2 (1.96, 2.43)2,DFZMLG

1.0 (0.83, 1.20)2,DFZXLG

Missing prevalence (1 + M)

 − 0.3 (− 0.57, − 0.11)1,EFDL

0.6 (0.28, 0.85)2,FDLZ

DMFT

3.7 (3.03, 4.39)2,GLFD

0.5 (0.32, 0.65)2,EFDLM

1.2 (1.10, 1.38)2,FDLZMG

0.8 (0.66, 0.98)2,DFZML

0.2 (0.10, 0.32)2,DFZXL

Gingival index

2.0 (1.21, 2.76)2,GLFD

0.5 (0.33, 0.75)2,EMT

0.4 (0.23, 0.64)2,FDLZ

1.1 (0.88, 1.26)2,DFZXLG

0.2 (0.05, 0.34)1,DFZXL

Plaque index

5.3 (4.76, 5.87)2,LFD

1.2 (1.08, 1.34)2,EMFL

1.3 (1.21, 1.49)2,FDLZ

1.3 (1.15, 1.43)2,DFZL

0.5 (0.41, 0.61)2,FZXL

     

Tooth decay

11.1 (10.13, 12.16)2,LFD

1.8 (1.59, 2.10)2,EMFL

2.4 (2.16, 2.62)2,FDZ

2.7 (2.45, 2.91)2,DFZML

0.8 (0.65, 1.05)2,DFZXL

Toothache

12.8 (11.87, 13.70)2,GLFD

2.3 (2.06, 2.48)2,EML

2.8 (2.60, 3.03)2,FDZG

2.9 (2.65, 3.10)2,DFZMLG

1.0 (0.84, 1.24)2,DFXLG

Tooth extraction

 − 0.4 (− 0.77, − 0.01)1,EFDL

Tooth sensitivity

 − 0.5 (− 0.84, − 0.11)1,EFDL

 − 0.4 (− 0.80, − 0.02)1,FDLZ

Tooth discoloration

2.0 (0.78, 3.19)1,LFD

0.3 (− 0.59, − 0.11)1,EFD

0.5 (0.18, 0.75)1,FDLZM

0.3 (0.13, 0.53)1,DFZMXLG

Fractured teeth

 − 2.9 (− 5.76, 0.01)1,L

 − 0.7 (− 1.32, 0.03)1

 − 0.4 (− 0.82, − 0.02)1

Tooth mobility

 − 3.5 (− 5.84, − 1.16)1,L

 − 0.5 (− 0.96, − 0.10)1,EFL

 − 0.9 (− 1.53, − 0.36)2,MXLG

 − 0.3 (− 0.62, − 0.01)1,FMXL

  1. 1p value < 0.05
  2. 2p value < 0.001
  3. FFrequency of brushing; DDental visits; TToothbrush; MMiswak; ZMiswak and Toothbrush; XMothers education; EFathers education; LLocation; GGender
  4. The multiple regression analysis was not performed because the independent variable was not significant in the binary regression analysis