Skip to main content

Table 4 Matched pair analysis for time to dental restoration failure by cases and controls with covariates for only positive cases and controls (n = 63)

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

3.293 (1.456, 7.449)

0.004*

 

Age

Each 1-Year Change

1.003 (0.968, 1.040)

0.852

Patient Type + Sexa

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.990 (1.290, 6.930)

0.011*

 

Sex

Female vs. Male

0.450 (0.098, 2.072)

0.305

Patient Type + Racea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.149 (1.405, 7.060)

0.005*

 

Race

  

0.256

  

Black vs. White

0.341 (0.086, 1.357)

0.127

  

Unknown vs. White

0.609 (0.191, 1.941)

0.402

Patient Type + Dental Insurancea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.220 (1.458, 7.112)

0.004*

 

Dental Insurance

Other vs. Self-Pay

1.182 (0.675, 2.069)

0.559

Patient Type + Medical Insurance b

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.880 (1.295, 6.407)

0.010*

 

Medical Insurance

  

0.094

  

Commercial vs. Public

1.590 (0.673, 3.754)

0.290

  

Other vs. Public

7.637 (0.790, 73.864)

0.079

Patient Type + Presence of Medical Diagnosisc

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.779 (1.594, 8.958)

0.003

 

Presence of Diagnosis

Yes vs. No

0.457 (0.106, 1.962)

0.292

Patient Type + Medication Usea

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.587 (1.595, 8.068)

0.002*

 

Medication Use

Yes vs. No

0.143 (0.012, 1.673)

0.121

Patient Type + Preventive Visit Rate per yeara,d

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

3.142 (1.370, 7.205)

0.007*

 

Preventive visit

Each 1-visit increase

0.933 (0.683, 1.275)

0.663

Patient Type + Surface Numbera

Patient Type

Case vs. Control

2.930 (1.388, 6.187)

0.005*

 

Surface Number

  

0.019*

  

2 vs. 1

2.129 (1.186, 3.822)

0.011*

  

3 + vs. 1

2.376 (1.201, 4.702)

0.013*

  

3 + vs. 2

1.116 (0.561, 2.221)

0.754

  1. aThe study cohort for this analysis included 21 positive Sjögren’s disease patients and 42 non-SD controls for a total of 63 patients. b The study cohort for this analysis included 20 cases and 41 controls. cThe study cohort for this analysis included 21 cases and 41 controls. 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