The geodemographic distribution of caries experience in neighboring fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations

Martin Tickle, Keith M. Milsom, Tony M. Jenner, Anthony S. Blinkhorn

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Objective: This study compares the geodemographic distribution of caries experience in neighboring fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations. Methods: All 5-year-old children living in fluoridated (N=1,422) and nonfluoridated (N=4,779) areas of Cheshire, UK, were examined by trained and calibrated examiners. The Target Market level of the Super Profiles geodemographic classification was used to produce market penetration ranking reports for caries experience. The same area types were compared in fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations. Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients were generated from the outputs of the penetration rankings. Results: There was a 12.4 percent difference in prevalence and a 29.4 percent difference in dmft between fluoridated (dmft>0=32.4%, dmft=1.01) and nonfluoridated (dmft>0=37.0%, dmft=1.43) areas. The area types at the top of both penetration rankings were deprived in nature and those at the bottom were affluent. The Gini coefficients in each area were 22.7 and 23.7 percent. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that water fluoridation is effective at preventing dental disease after controlling for confounding factors. In both populations the majority of disease was not confined to a small number of deprived area types. This undermines the contention that a targeted approach to caries prevention is a practical option.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)92-98
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of Public Health Dentistry
    Volume63
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2003

    Keywords

    • Dental caries
    • Deprivation
    • Geodemographic classifications
    • Water fluoridation

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The geodemographic distribution of caries experience in neighboring fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this