Skip to main content

Table 3 Dental restoration failure by patient type with covariates for all cases and controls (n = 144)

From: Longevity of dental restorations in Sjogren’s disease patients using electronic dental and health record data

Model

Variable

Comparison

Hazard Ratio (95% CI)

p-value

Patient Type + Agea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.976 (1.468, 6.033)

0.003*

 

Age

Each 1-Year Change

1.005 (0.984, 1.026)

0.657

Patient Type + Sexa

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.044 (1.495, 6.198)

0.002*

 

Sex

Female vs. Male

1.173 (0.492, 2.799)

0.719

Patient Type + Racea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.906 (1.420, 5.946)

0.004*

 

Race

  

0.346

  

Black vs. White

0.679 (0.298, 1.545)

0.356

  

Unknown vs. White

1.022 (0.537, 1.946)

0.947

Patient Type + Dental Insurancea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.985 (1.477, 6.031)

0.002*

 

Dental Insurance

Other vs. Self-Pay

1.021 (0.684, 1.523)

0.919

Patient Type + Medical Insuranceb

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.916 (1.395, 6.094)

0.004*

 

Medical Insurance

  

0.459

  

Commercial vs. Public

1.343 (0.734, 2.457)

0.339

  

Other vs. Public

2.171 (0.435, 10.829)

0.345

Patient Type + Presence of Medical Diagnosisc

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.257 (1.561, 6.800)

0.002*

 

Presence of Diagnosis

Yes vs. No

0.562 (0.160, 1.980)

0.370

Patient Type + Medication Usea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.006 (1.484, 6.089)

0.002*

 

Medication Use

Yes vs. No

1.451 (0.363, 5.795)

0.598

Patient Type + Preventive Visit Rate per yeara,d

Patient Type

Preventive Visit

Case vs. Control

Each 1-visit increase

2.990 (1.476, 6.061)

0.994 (0.882, 1.121)

0.002*

0.928

Patient Type + Surface Numbera

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.758 (1.365, 5.571)

0.005*

 

Surface Number

  

0.022*

  

2 vs. 1

1.473 (1.014, 2.140)

0.042*

  

3 + vs. 1

1.738 (1.115, 2.710)

0.015*

  

3 + vs. 2

1.180 (0.731, 1.904)

0.497

  1. aThe study cohort for this analysis included 144 case and control patients with at least one dental restoration treatment code. The sample includes 140 restorations for control patients and 529 restorations for case patients for a total of 669 restorations. bThe study cohort for this analysis included 94 cases with 463 restorations and 41 controls with 139 restorations for a total of 602 restorations. cThe study cohort for this analysis included 102 cases with 529 restorations and 41 controls with 139 restorations for a total of 668 restorations. dThe preventive visit rate per year was calculated by dividing the total number of preventive visits by the absolute value of the time between the index date and the patient’s first dental visit (of any type). Absolute times values less than one year were rounded to the nearest year. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical significance at the 5% level