Search

Objective: To examine the association of social support with dental caries experience in Hispanics/Latinos living in the United States (US) and to assess whether the relationship is modified by nativity status., Methods: This cross-sectional study analysed data for 4459 dentate men and women aged 18-74 years in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) Sociocultural Ancillary Study. At baseline (2008-2011), dentists quantified dental caries experience as the number of decayed, missing, and filled permanent tooth surfaces (DMFS) for all teeth excluding third molars. Social support was assessed according to measures of structural support (Social Network Index) and functional support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List). Covariate-adjusted multiple linear regression estimated the relationship between social support and dental caries experience and tested whether the association was modified by nativity status (born within the 50 US states, foreign-born <10 years in the United States, foreign-born >10 years or more in the United States)., Results: In covariate-adjusted models, each additional role in the social network was associated with 1.39 fewer DMF tooth surfaces (95% CI: -2.21, -0.58) among foreign-born Hispanics/Latinos with fewer than 10 years lived in the US. For foreign-born Hispanics/Latinos with 10 years or more in the United States, each additional social network role was associated with 0.57 fewer DMF tooth surfaces (95% CI: -1.19, 0.04). No association was observed between functional social support and dental caries experience regardless of nativity status., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that structural social support is protective against dental caries experience among recent immigrants of Hispanic/Latino background. This association may reflect the importance of social support to integration into the medical and dental infrastructure and thus receipt of dental care. Future research that examines the behavioural and cultural factors that moderate the relationship between social support and dental caries experience will inform development of culturally sensitive dental caries prevention programs for Hispanics/Latinos in the United States., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To examine the association of social capital with periodontal disease severity., Materials and Methods: We analysed data obtained from 3,994 men and women aged 18-74 years in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study (HCHS/SOL SCAS). From 2008 to 2011, dentists assessed periodontitis status with a full-mouth periodontal examination. Periodontitis was classified using standardized case definitions. Multivariable logistic regression estimated odds of moderate-severe periodontitis associated with two measures of social capital: structural support (Social Network Index) and functional support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List)., Results: For US-born participants, for each additional person in their social network, the adjusted odds of moderate-severe periodontitis was reduced 17% (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.96). However, no association was found between functional support and periodontal disease severity., Conclusions: Greater structural social support was associated with a lower prevalence of moderate-severe periodontitis in US-born Hispanics/Latinos. These findings suggest that US-born Hispanics/Latinos with less social support represent a vulnerable segment of the population at high-risk group for periodontal disease., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

ObjectiveTo describe self-reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and its association with periodontitis prevalence in a diverse group of Hispanics/Latinos.MethodsData came from 8675 lifetime nonsmokers in the 2008-2011 Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Exposure to ETS was self-reported, while periodontitis was defined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-American Academy of Periodontology criteria and the proportion of sites affected by clinical attachment level of ≥3 mm or pocket depth of ≥4 mm. Survey logistic regression estimated prevalence odds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In addition, we assessed whether greater hours of exposure to ETS in the past year was associated with greater periodontitis prevalence, and lastly, we conducted a simple sensitivity analysis of ETS misclassification.ResultsAge-standardized prevalence estimates (95% CI) for ETS exposure and periodontitis were 57.6% (55.9, 59.4) and 39.8% (38.1, 41.4), respectively. After adjusting for confounders and periodontitis risk factors, we estimated an overall adjusted POR (95% CI) for the ETS-periodontitis association as 1.09 (0.95-1.26) with a confidence limit ratio (CLR) of 1.34. This association varied in magnitude by Hispanic/Latino background, ranging from 1.04 (0.75, 1.43 with a CLR = 1.91) among Central Americans to 1.76 (1.16, 2.66 with a CLR = 2.29) in Puerto Ricans.ConclusionsPreviously reported associations between ETS and periodontitis appear weak in this study. However, the magnitude of the association differs according to Hispanic/Latino background.

Allostatic load (AL), an index of biological "wear and tear" on the body from cumulative exposure to stress, has been little studied in US Hispanics/Latinos. We investigated AL accumulation patterns by age, sex, and nativity in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. We studied 15,830 Hispanic/Latinos of Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican, Central and South American descent aged 18-74 years, 77% of whom were foreign-born. Consistent with the conceptualization of AL, we developed an index based upon 16 physiological markers that spanned the cardiometabolic, parasympathetic, and inflammatory systems. We computed mean adjusted AL scores using log-linear models across age-groups (18-44, 45-54, 55-74 years), by sex and nativity status. Among foreign-born individuals, differences in AL by duration of residence in the US (

Objective: To establish population estimates of self-assessed tooth loss and subjective oral health and describe the social distribution of these measures among dentate adults in Australia. Methods: Self-report data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 3,678 adults aged 18-91 years who participated in the 1999 National Dental Telephone Interview Survey and completed a subsequent mail survey. Oral health was evaluated using (1) self-assessed tooth loss, (2) the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile, and (3) a global six-point rating of oral health. Results: While the absolute difference in tooth loss across household income levels increased at each successive age group (18-44 years, 45-64 years, 65+ years) from 0.7 teeth to 6.1 teeth, the magnitude of the difference was approximately twofold at each age group. For subjective oral health measures, the magnitude of difference across income groups was most pronounced in the 18-44 years age group. In multivariate analysis, low household income, blue-collar occupation, and high residential area disadvantage were positively associated with social impact from oral conditions and pathological tooth loss. Speaking other than English at home (relative to English), low household income (relative to high income), and vocational relative to tertiary education were each associated with more than twice the odds of poor self-rated oral health. Conclusions: Significant social differentials in perceived oral health exist among dentate adults. Inequalities span the socioeconomic hierarchy. Implications: In addition to improving overall levels of oral health in the adult community, goals and targets should aim to reduce social inequalities in the distribution of outcomes.

Objectives. To better understand the trajectory that propels people from poverty to poor health, we investigated health resilience longitudinally among African American families with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level. Methods. Health resilience is the capacity to maintain good health in the face of significant adversity. With higher levels of tooth retention as a marker of health resilience, we used a social-epidemiological framework to define capacity for health resilience through a chain of determinants starting in the built environment (housing quality) and community context (social support) to familial influences (religiosity) and individual mental health and health behavior. Results. Odds of retaining 20 or more teeth were 3 times as likely among adults with resilience versus more-vulnerable adults (odds ratio = 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3,7.4). Children of caregivers with resilience had a lower incident rate of noncavitated tooth decay at 18- to 24-month follow-up (incidence risk ratio = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.7, 0.9) compared with other children. Conclusions. Health resilience to poverty was supported by protective factors in the built and social environments. When poverty itself cannot be eliminated, improving the quality of the built and social environments will foster resilience to its harmful health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2008; 98:1101-1106. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.119495) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The extent to which periodontitis is attributable to smoking in Australia has not been examined. Objectives: To investigate the smoking–periodontitis relationship and to estimate the public health impact of smoking on periodontitis in Australia. Material and Methods: The National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004–2006 collected nationally representative oral epidemiologic data for the Australian adult population. Examiners measured probing pocket depth (PPD) and gingival recession at three sites per tooth to compute clinical attachment level (CAL). Moderate-severe cases were defined as having: ⩾2 interproximal sites (not on same tooth) with ⩾4 mm CAL or with ⩾5 mm PPD. Smoking status was defined as never-, former- or current-smoker. Current-smokers were further classified into light-, moderate- or heavy-smoker using calculated pack-years. Age, sex and socioeconomic position were examined as potential confounders. Results: Twenty-three per cent were former-smokers and 15% were current-smokers. Prevalence of periodontitis was 23%. In unadjusted analyses, former- and current-smokers had significantly higher periodontitis prevalence than never-smokers. Relative to non-smokers, adjusted prevalence ratios (95% confidence interval) for periodontitis were as follows: former-smokers: 1.22 (1.03–1.46), moderate-smokers: 1.63 (1.16–2.30); and heavy-smokers: 1.64 (1.27–2.12). The population attributable fraction of smoking for moderate-severe periodontitis was 32% (equivalent to 700,000 adults). Conclusion: Smoking has a significant impact on periodontal health of the Australian adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the association between neighborhood disadvantage and individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and self-reported oral health. Methods: A population-based cross-sectional study conducted in 2003 among males and females aged 43–57 years. The sample comprised 2915 individuals and 60 neighborhoods and was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected using a mail survey (69.4% response rate). Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using a census-based composite index, and individual-level SEP was measured using education and household income. Oral health was indicated by self-reports of the impact of oral conditions on quality of life (0 = none or minor, 1 = severe), self-rated oral health (0 = excellent–good, 1 = fair/poor) and missing teeth (measured as a quantitative outcome). Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling. Results: After adjusting for age, sex, education, and household income, residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were significantly more likely than those in more advantaged neighborhoods to indicate negative impacts of oral conditions on quality of life, to assess their oral health as fair or poor, and to report greater tooth loss. In addition, respondents with low levels of education and those from a low income household reported poorer oral health for each outcome independent of neighborhood disadvantage. Conclusions: The socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods are important for oral health over and above the socioeconomic characteristics of the people living in those neighborhoods. Policies and interventions to improve population oral health should be directed at the social, physical and infrastructural characteristics of places as well as individuals (i.e. the traditional target of intervention efforts). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]