Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Child Oral Health in Three Australian States and Territories

Jamieson, Lisa; Armfield, Jason M.; Roberts‐Thomson, Kaye

doi:10.1080/13557850601002197

Cited by 27 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All other studies have found similar differences as we report, namely that Indigenous children experience approximately twice the burden of dental caries compared to non-Indigenous children. 2,25,26 Again unsurprisingly, we found lower prevalence and severity of dental caries in children who lived in (2) 0.7 0.74 % difference (2) 64.2 117.5 †Absolute difference (1) = Indigenous -non-Indigenous.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Does fluoride in the water close the dental caries gap between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous children?

Lalloo

Jamieson

et al. 2015

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Indigenous children experience significantly more dental caries than non-Indigenous children. This study assessed if access to fluoride in the water closed the gap in dental caries between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. Methods: Data from four states and two territories were sourced from the Child Dental Health Survey (CDHS) conducted in 2010. The outcomes were dental caries in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, and the explanatory variables were Indigenous status and access to fluoridated water (≥0.5 mg/L) prior to 2008. Results: Dental caries prevalence and severity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, in both dentitions, was lower in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. Among non-Indigenous children, there was a 50.9% difference in mean dmft scores in fluoridated (1.70) compared to non-fluoridated (2.86) areas. The difference between Indigenous children in fluoridated (3.29) compared to non-fluoridated (4.16) areas was 23.4%. Among non-Indigenous children there was a 79.7% difference in the mean DMFT scores in fluoridated (0.68) compared to non-fluoridated (1.58) areas. The difference between Indigenous children in fluoridated (1.59) and non-fluoridated (2.23) areas was 33.5%. Conclusions: Water fluoridation is effective in reducing dental caries, but does not appear to close the gap between nonIndigenous children and Indigenous children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Does fluoride in the water close the dental caries gap between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous children?

Lalloo

Jamieson

et al. 2015

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of these variations in reporting, the caries-free proportion was calculated from papers that reported caries prevalence (percentage with caries). Data were entered into a 20 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Endean et al (2004) 21 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Armfield (2005) 22 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Blair et al (2005) 23 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Kruger et al (2005) 24 Cross 27 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT WHO 1997 28 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Hopcraft and Chow (2007) 29 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Visually apparent cavitation, discolouration showing through enamel or visual evidence of recurrent caries SiC SiC10 30 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported SiC SiC10 Bailie et al (2009) 31 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Spencer et al (2010) 32 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Not reported Jamieson et al (2010) 33 Longitudinal cohort dmft/DMFT Untreated decay diagnosed as cavitation of enamel or dentinal involvement or both being present Dogar (2011) 3 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT WHO 1997 Slade et al (2011) 34 RCT dmfs Cavitation-visible break in the enamel surface Divaris et al (2013) 35 RCT dmfs Cavitation-visible break in the enamel surface Zander et al (2013) 36 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Caries diagnosis taken from enamel cavitation Ha, ACPOHR (2014) 37 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT WHO 1997 Johnson et al (2014) 38 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT WHO 1997 Lalloo et al (2014) 39 Cross-sectional dmft/DMFT Clinical judgement Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA, USA) spreadsheet and examined for any duplication of data in studies by the same authors. Rural and urban location was extracted from papers where this was reported.…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flying blind: trying to find solutions to Indigenous oral health

Silva

Martin-Kerry²,

Geale³

et al. 2016

Aust. Health Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The aim of the present study was to identify all published evidence about oral health in Indigenous children in Australia and to determine trends in Indigenous oral health over time.Methods. PubMed was used to search for published peer-reviewed articles that reported caries (decay) prevalence rates and/or caries experience (based on caries indices) in Indigenous children. Studies included in the analysis needed to report clinical oral health data (not self-reported dental experiences), and articles were excluded if they reported caries in only a select, specific or targeted sample (e.g. only children undergoing hospital admissions for dental conditions).Results. The review identified 32 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported data from the Northern Territory (n = 14), Western Australia (n = 7), South Australia (n = 7), Queensland (n = 7), New South Wales (n = 1), Australian Capital Territory (n = 1) and Tasmania (n = 1). Of the studies, 47% were in rural locations, 9% were in urban locations and 44% were in both rural and urban locations. Data are limited and predominantly for Indigenous children living in rural locations, and there are no published studies on caries in Indigenous children living in Victoria.Conclusions. The present study documents the published prevalence and severity of caries in Indigenous children living in Australia and highlights that limited oral health data are available for this priority population. Although risk factors for oral disease are well known, most of the studies did not analyse the link between these factors and oral disease present. There is also inconsistency in how caries is reported in terms of age and caries criteria used. We cannot rely on the available data to inform the development of policies and programs to address the oral health differences in Indigenous populations living contemporary lives in metropolitan areas.What is known about the topic? Many studies report that Indigenous people have poorer general health in Australia compared with non-Indigenous people.

show abstract

“…There was little change in dental health for Indigenous children from 1991 to 2001. A study in the Northern Territory found that the prevalence of dental caries amongst non-Indigenous children improved from 1989 to 2000 while the prevalence amongst Indigenous children worsened during the same period (Jamieson et al 2007 The bacterial STIs and HIV are transmitted through sexual contact while hepatitis C is most commonly transmitted through contact with infected blood (usually injecting drug use). HIV is also transmitted through contact with infected blood.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%