Socioeconomic inequalities are associated with oral health status, either subjectively (self-rated oral health) or objectively (clinically-diagnosed dental diseases). The aim of this study is to compare the magnitude of socioeconomic inequality in oral health and dental disease among adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (US). Nationally-representative survey examination data were used to calculate adjusted absolute differences (AD) in prevalence of untreated decay and fair/poor self-rated oral health (SROH) in income and education. We pooled age- and gender-adjusted inequality estimates using random effects meta-analysis. New Zealand demonstrated the highest adjusted estimate for untreated decay; the US showed the highest adjusted prevalence of fair/poor SROH. The meta-analysis showed little heterogeneity across countries for the prevalence of decayed teeth; the pooled ADs were 19.7 (95% CI = 16.7–22.7) and 12.0 (95% CI = 8.4–15.7) between highest and lowest education and income groups, respectively. There was heterogeneity in the mean number of decayed teeth and in fair/poor SROH. New Zealand had the widest inequality in decay (education AD = 0.8; 95% CI = 0.4–1.2; income AD = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.5–1.5) and the US the widest inequality in fair/poor SROH (education AD = 40.4; 95% CI = 35.2–45.5; income AD = 20.5; 95% CI = 13.0–27.9). The differences in estimates, and variation in the magnitude of inequality, suggest the need for further examining socio-cultural and contextual determinants of oral health and dental disease in both the included and other countries.

Dental disease has far-reaching impacts on child health and wellbeing. We worked with Aboriginal Australian communities to develop a multifaceted oral health promotion initiative to reduce children's experience of dental disease at age 2 years. This was a single-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited from health service providers across South Australia. Women pregnant with an Aboriginal child were eligible. The intervention comprised: (1) provision of dental care to mothers during pregnancy; (2) application of fluoride varnish to teeth of children at ages 6, 12 and 18 months; (3) motivational interviewing delivered in conjunction with; (4) anticipatory guidance. The primary outcome was untreated dental decay as assessed by the number of teeth with cavitated and non-cavitated carious lesions (mean dt) at child age 24 months. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principles. The RCT was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12611000111976. Women (n = 448) were recruited from February 2011 to May 2012, resulting in 223 children in the treatment group and 225 in the control. Mean dt at age two years was 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65) for the intervention group and 0.89 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92) for the control group (mean difference - 0.27 (95% CI - 0.31, - 0.22)). A culturally-appropriate intervention at four time-points from pregnancy through to 18-months resulted in improvements in the oral health of Aboriginal children. Further consultation with Aboriginal communities is essential for understanding how to best sustain these oral health improvements for young Aboriginal children.

The objective was to compare absolute differences in the prevalence of Indigenous-related inequalities in dental disease experience and self-rated oral health in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Data were sourced from national oral health surveys in Australia (2004 to 2006), Canada (2007 to 2009), and New Zealand (2009). Participants were aged ≥18 y. The authors measured age- and sex-adjusted inequalities by estimating absolute prevalence differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Clinical measures included the prevalence of untreated decayed teeth, missing teeth, and filled teeth; self-reported measures included the prevalence of “fair” or “poor” self-rated oral health. The overall pattern of Indigenous disadvantage was similar across all countries. The summary estimates for the adjusted prevalence differences were as follows: 16.5 (95% CI: 11.1 to 21.9) for decayed teeth (all countries combined), 18.2 (95% CI: 12.5 to 24.0) for missing teeth, 0.8 (95% CI: –1.9 to 3.5) for filled teeth, and 17.5 (95% CI: 11.3 to 23.6) for fair/poor self-rated oral health. The I²estimates were small for each outcome: 0.0% for decayed, missing, and filled teeth and 11.6% for fair/poor self-rated oral health. Irrespective of country, when compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts, Indigenous persons had more untreated dental caries and missing teeth, fewer teeth that had been restored (with the exception of Canada), and a higher proportion reporting fair/poor self-rated oral health. There were no discernible differences among the 3 countries.

The aim of this article was to quantify socioeconomic inequalities in dental caries experience among Australian children and to identify factors that explain area-level socioeconomic inequalities in children’s dental caries. We used data from the National Child Oral Health Survey conducted in Australia between 2012 and 2014 (n = 24,664). Absolute and relative indices of socioeconomic inequalities in the dental caries experience in primary and permanent dentition (decayed, missing, and filled surfaces [dmfs] and DMFS, respectively) were estimated. In the first stage, we conducted multilevel negative binomial regressions to test the association between area-level Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) and dental caries experience (dmfs for 5- to 8-y-olds and DMFS for 9- to 14-y-olds) after adjustment for water fluoridation status, sociodemographics, oral health behaviors, pattern of dental visits, and sugar consumption. In the second stage, we performed Blinder-Oaxaca and Neumark decomposition analyses to identify factors that explain most of the area-level socioeconomic inequalities in dental caries. Children had a mean dmfs of 3.14 and a mean DMFS of 0.98 surfaces. Children living in the most disadvantaged and intermediately disadvantaged areas had 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.69–2.27) and 1.45 (1.26–1.68) times higher mean dmfs and 1.53 (1.36–1.72) and 1.43 (1.27–1.60) times higher mean DMFS than those living in the most advantaged areas, respectively. Water fluoridation status (33.6%), sugar consumption (22.1%), parental educational level (14.2%), and dental visit patterns (12.7%) were the main factors explaining area-level socioeconomic inequalities in dental caries in permanent dentition. Among all the factors considered, the factors that contributed most in explaining inequalities in primary dental caries were dental visits (30.3%), sugar consumption (20.7%), household income (20.0%), and water fluoridation status (15.9%). The inverse area-level socioeconomic inequality in dental caries was mainly explained by modifiable risk factors, such as lack of fluoridated water, high sugar consumption, and an unfavorable pattern of dental visits.