Summary statistics of the participants are shown in Table 1. A number of 5473 subjects was included in the study, reporting a mean of 43.13 y, of which 63.4% were female. The respondent distribution by EL was 24.3 % for LEL, 53.9% for MEL and 21.8% for HEL.
Table 1: Survey respondent general characteristics, (mean age: 43.13 y). ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
Variables
|
(n, %)
|
Gender
|
|
Men
|
2003 (36.6)
|
Women
|
3470 (63.4)
|
Total
|
5473
|
|
|
Age (years)
|
|
15- 24 y
|
728 (13.3)
|
25-44 y
|
1561 (28.5)
|
45-64 y
|
1836 (33.5)
|
65 and above y
|
1348 (24.7)
|
|
|
(EL)
|
|
Low (LEL)
|
1329 (24.3)
|
Medium (MEL)
|
2948 (53.9)
|
High (HEL)
|
1196 (21.8)
|
EL Educational Level, n Sample Size.
1 - Number of remaining teeth:
The adjusted mean number of teeth in the maxilla was 10.88 [10.68-11.10] and in the mandible was 11.86 teeth [11.51-11.86]. In men, the mean number of upper teeth was 10.97 [10.65-11.28] and 12.0 [11.73-12.27] of lower teeth. In women, the mean number of upper teeth was 10.29 [9.99-10.58] and the mean number of lower teeth was 11.35[11.09-11.6].
The adjusted difference in the number of teeth in the maxilla was 1.59 when comparing LEL with MEL subjects (p-value<0.001), whereas this difference increases up to 3.11 (p-value<0.001) between LEL and HEL subjects. A comparison between MEL and HEL subjects resulted in a difference of 1.52 teeth in the maxilla (p-value<0.001) (Table 2).
Table 2: Number of teeth in the maxilla and mandible according to EL, n=5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
|
Number of teeth in the maxilla
|
Number of teeth in the mandible
|
EL
|
Mean
|
Error
|
CI 95%
|
Mean
|
Error
|
CI95%
|
Low
|
9.06
|
0.321
|
[8.43-9.69]
|
10.82
|
0.271
|
[10.29-11.36]
|
M (n=414)
|
9.40
|
0.330
|
[8.76-10.05]
|
11.15
|
0.280
|
[10.60-11.70]
|
W (n=915)
|
8.72
|
0.325
|
[8.08-9.36]
|
10.50
|
0.275
|
[9.96-11.04]
|
Medium
|
10.65
|
0.134
|
[10.38-10.91]
|
11.65
|
0.115
|
[11.43-11.88]
|
M (n=1106)
|
10.99
|
0.159
|
[10.68-11.30]
|
11.98
|
0.133
|
[11.71-12.24]
|
W (n=1842)
|
10.30
|
0.137
|
[10.04-10.57]
|
11.33
|
0.124
|
[11.09-11.57]
|
High
|
12.17
|
0.178
|
[11.82-12.52]
|
12.54
|
0.130
|
[12.29-12.80]
|
M (n=483)
|
12.51
|
0.189
|
[12.14-12.88]
|
12.87
|
0.142
|
[12.59-13.15]
|
W (n=713)
|
11.83
|
0.190
|
[11.46-12.20]
|
12.22
|
0.143
|
[11.94-12.50]
|
Adjusted models by age, sex and location. M men, W women, EL educational level.
With respect to the mandible, the adjusted difference was 0.83 when comparing LEL and MEL subjects (p-value<0.001). Between LEL and HEL subjects, the difference was 1.72 teeth (p-value<0.001). When MEL and HEL subjects, the mean difference obtained was 0.89 teeth in the mandible (p-value<0.001) (Table 2).
In men with a HEL, the adjusted mean of upper teeth was 12.51 [12.14-12.88], whereas in those with a LEL it was 9.40 [8.76-10.05]. In women with a HEL, the mean of upper teeth was 11.83 [11.46-12.20], but in those with a LEL decreased to 8.72 [8.08-9.36]. In men with a HEL, the mean of lower teeth was 12.87 [12.59-13.15], and in those with a LEL it was 11.15 [10.60-11.70]. In women, the difference in lower teeth between HEL with LEL (p-value<0.001) amounted to 1.72. When comparing the number of remaining teeth between men and women, according to EL, statistically significant differences were found in both, the maxilla and mandible (p-value<0.001) (Table 2).
2 - Edentulism:
The adjusted prevalence of edentulism in the maxilla was 8.92% [8.25-9.59%], whereas in the mandible it was 5.36% [4.91-5.81%]. The prevalence of upper edentulism was 9.60% [8.82-10.38%] in men and 16.56% [15.58-17.54%] in women. As to the mandible, the prevalence of edentulism was 5.67% [5.06-6.28%] and 9.84% [9.05-10.63%] in men and in women, respectively. Women showed an edentulism OR of 2.42 [1.71-3.42] for the maxilla and 2.30 [1.50-3.53] for the mandibule in relation to men.
A MEL individual had a 3.36 [1.50-7.52] times higher risk of edentulism than a HEL individual, while a LEL individual had a 7.51 [3.50-16.10] times higher risk of having no teeth than a HEL individual (Table 3). As to the mandible, a MEL individual had a 3.07 [1.33-7.09] times higher risk of edentulism than a HEL individual. Moreover, the same risk increases up to 6.06 [2.68-13.68] in a LEL subject compared to a HEL individual (Table 4).
In men with LEL, the prevalence of upper edentulism was 23.41% [19.56-27.26], whereas in those with a MEL and HEL it was 3.8% [3.34-4.43] and 1.50% [0.09-2.08], respectively. In women, the prevalence of upper edentulism was 42.35% [38.71-45.99] for LEL, 6.30% [5.55-7.05] for MEL and 1.02% [0.07-1.30] for HEL. All differences in the prevalence described above were statistically significant (p-value<0.001) (Table 3).
In men with LEL, the prevalence of lower edentulism was 15.12% [12.31-17.94], in those with a MEL was 1.83% [1.56-2.10] and to those with a HEL it was only 0.06% [0.03-0.08]. The prevalence of lower edentulism in women was 25.40% [22.82-27.9] for LEL, 4.03% [3.53-4.5] for MEL and 0.09% [0.07-1.18] for HEL. All differences were statistically significant after the adjustments (p-value<0.001) (Table 4).
Table 3: Prevalence of edentulism in the maxilla according to EL, n=5473, ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
EL
|
Prevalence
|
CI 95%
|
OR
|
CI 95%
|
Low
|
32.88
|
[31.63-34.12]
|
7.51
|
[3.50-16.10]
|
M (n=414)
|
23.41
|
[19.56-27.26]
|
|
|
W (n=915)
|
42.35
|
[38.71-45.99]
|
|
|
Medium
|
5.13
|
[4.63-5.64]
|
3.36
|
[1.50-7.52]
|
M (n=1106)
|
3.88
|
[3.34-4.43]
|
|
|
W (n=1842)
|
6.30
|
[5.55-7.05]
|
|
|
High
|
1.29
|
[0.01-1.65]
|
1
|
|
M (n=483)
|
1.50
|
[0.09-2.08]
|
|
|
W (n=713)
|
1.02
|
[0.07-1.30]
|
|
|
Adjusted models by age, sex and location. M men, W women, EL educational level.
Table 4: Prevalence of edentulism in the mandible according to EL, n=5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
EL
|
Prevalence
|
CI 95%
|
OR
|
CI 95%
|
Low
|
21.19
|
[19.24-23.14]
|
6.06
|
[2.68-13.68]
|
M (n=414)
|
15.12
|
[12.31-17.94]
|
|
|
W (n=915)
|
25.40
|
[22.82-27.98]
|
|
|
Medium
|
2.97
|
[2.65-3.28]
|
3.07
|
[1.33-7.09]
|
M (n=1106)
|
1.83
|
[1.56-2.10]
|
|
|
W (n=1842)
|
4.03
|
[3.53-4.53]
|
|
|
High
|
0.07
|
[0.05-0.09]
|
1
|
|
M (n=483)
|
0.06
|
[0.03-0.08]
|
|
|
W (n=713)
|
0.09
|
[0.07-1.18]
|
|
|
Adjusted models by age, sex and location. M men, W women, EL educational level.
3 - Functional Dentition:
The adjusted prevalence of functional dentition was 75.30% [73.98-76.62] and the OR between men and women was 1.50 [1.14-1.96]. In terms of EL, the prevalence was 28.82% [25.51-32.13] for LEL, 79.53% [78.18-80.88] for MEL and 94.42% [93.23-95.61] for HEL. Comparing LEL subjects (OR=1) with MEL and HEL subjects, the obtained OR were 2.81 [2.03-3.87] and 13.33 [8.02-22.15], respectively (Table 5).
In men, the prevalence of functional dentition was 31.83% [26.04-37.61] for LEL, 82.20% [80.36-84.04] for MEL and 94.50% [92.83-96.15] for HEL. In women, the prevalence of functional dentition was 26.74% [22.86-30.62] for LEL and amounted to 94.34% [93.06-95.63] in those with a HEL (Table 5).
Table 5: Prevalence of functional dentition according to EL, n=5473. ENS 2016-2017, Chile.
EL
|
Prevalence
|
CI 95%
|
OR
|
CI 95%
|
Low
|
28.82
|
[25.51-32.13]
|
1
|
|
M (n=414)
|
31.83
|
[26.04-37.61]
|
|
|
W (n=915)
|
26.74
|
[22.86-30.62]
|
|
|
Medium
|
79.53
|
[78.18-80.88]
|
2.81
|
[2.03-3.87]
|
M (n=1106)
|
82.20
|
[80.36-84.04]
|
|
|
W (n=1842)
|
77.03
|
[75.20-78.86]
|
|
|
High
|
94.42
|
[93.23-95.61]
|
13.33
|
[8.02-22.15]
|
M (n=483)
|
94.50
|
[92.83-96.15]
|
|
|
W (n=713)
|
94.34
|
[93.06-95.63]
|
|
|
Adjusted models by age, sex and location. M men, W women, EL educational level.