SYSTEMATIC REVIEW |
|
Year : 2020 | Volume
: 16
| Issue : 4 | Page : 146-151 |
|
Review of the correlation between social economic status and oral diseases in India
Chandrashekar Janakiram1, Naveen Jacob Varghese2, Joe Joseph3
1 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, AIMS, Kochi, Kerala, India 2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Azeezia College of Dental Science and Research, Kollam, Kerala, India 3 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Chandrashekar Janakiram Department of Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, AIMS, Ponekkara, Kochi - 682 041, Kerala India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 1 |
DOI: 10.4103/AMJM.AMJM_51_20
|
|
Socioeconomic inequalities in oral health can be defined as the differences in the prevalence or incidence of oral health problems. We assessed the pooled estimate of prevalence of oral diseases among different socioeconomic status (SES) in India by including all articles published up to December 2016 with the prevalence of the oral diseases in SES population using the confined research terms in databases of PubMed and Google Scholar. All articles which had assessed the dental caries, periodontal disease, malocclusion, and oral cancer in different socioeconomic groups were collected. Out of 209 articles retrieved, 19 studies were included. The pooled estimate for mean DMFT for upper, middle, and lower SES status was 3.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3–3.1), 2.6 (95% CI 2.6–2.9) and 3.05 (95% CI 3.05–3.04). The prevalence of periodontal disease for (upper SES 12 [95% CI 11–12], middle SES 28 [95% CI 28–29] and lower SES status 60 (95% CI 59–60)] and in (Kuppuswamy scale Upper SES 22 [95% CI 21–22], middle SES 24 (95% CI 23–24] lower SES status 28 [95% CI 27–28]). Our analysis shows that the SES was inversely proportional to the oral diseases. There was a minor variation between DMFT between groups which may be attributed to the lack of large number of studies assessing the SES and dental caries. The pooled estimate of the mean DMFT across the SES status was inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|