**The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults**

Kadriye Peker

*Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University Turkey* 

#### **1. Introduction**

No studies have been published on a comprehensive appraisal of the full range of factors that may affect Turkish adults' perceptions of their oral health status, as measured by a single item. Understanding the local context of self–rated oral health (SROH) and its determinants within Turkish culture will be important to develop oral health policy and to design oral health promotion programs for adults. Oral diseases, primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases, are major public health problems in Turkey (Gökalp et al., 2010). Oral health care resources are primarily allocated to curative care without an underlying oral health policy. The government's oral health care budget and the existing oral health services are inadequate to meet increasing oral health needs and demands of the adult population (Kargul & Bakkal, 2010). Utilization of oral health care services is low, and the oral health visits are usually problem-oriented (Gökalp et al., 2010; Kargul & Bakkal, 2010).

In Turkey, most studies of adults have focused dominantly on biological, clinical and behavioral health risk factors of oral diseases (Akarslan et al., 2008; Gökalp et al., 2010; Namal et al., 2008; Oztürk et al., 2008; Unlüer et al., 2007). In the past decade, few studies using validated subjective oral health measures have been conducted to verify the impact of different oral disorders and prosthodontic treatments on oral health quality of life in Turkish patients groups (Arslan et al., 2009; Baran & Nalcaci, 2011; Caglayan et al., 2009; Geckili et al., 2011). To the best of your knowledge, there is one published study that investigated the relationships among oral health beliefs, oral health behaviors, sociodemographic factors and SROH (Peker & Bermek, 2011).

SROH is an assessment of the functional, psychological, and social impact of oral disease and disorder on overall well being (Locker & Gibson, 2005). Although different approaches are available for evaluating self-perceived oral health, single-item indicators have frequently been used because they represent a valid and simple measure for evaluating oral health– related outcomes and summarizing oral health status (Dolan et al., 1998; Locker & Gibson, 2005). Most studies have been conducted with samples of adults, and findings indicate this measure is fairly stable over time (Peek et al., 1999), and positively associated with clinical assessment of oral health status (Gilbert et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2010; Pattussi et al., 2010; Peek et al., 1999). Over the past two decades there has been growing interest in examining individuals' SROH (Atchison & Andersen, 2000; Gilbert et al., 1998; Locker et al., 2005,

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 173

A multidimensional model of oral health is comprised of five dimensions: namely - oral disease and tissue damage, oral pain and discomfort, oral functional limitation, oral disadvantage, and self-rated oral health (Gilbert et al., 1998; Locker, 1988). The Andersen's Behavioral Model consists of variables distributed into four levels: exogenous variables, primary determinants of oral health, health behaviors, and oral health outcomes. This model proposes that a person's characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors will predict one's perceptions of oral health (Andersen, 1995). These models as conceptual framework were used to assess differences in the multitude of factors influencing oral health and to explain populationbased oral health behaviors and outcomes (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Baker, 2009; Gilbert, 2005;

In this study, these models were used to help develop the survey instrument and to guide data analysis, including the selection of variables for the logistic regression models. A set of independent individual-level variables were identified that may influence SROH: (1) exogenous variables (age, gender); (2) personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors - education, marital status, oral health locus of control (LOC) beliefs, perceived general health status; enabling characteristics - socio-economic status, having dental insurance; need factors - perceived dental treatment need, self-reported number of teeth, self-reported dental pain and dental problems, and (3) oral health behaviors (frequency of tooth brushing, dental attendance

A number of studies showed that demographic and socio-economic variables such as gender, age, income and marital status have been associated with SROH (Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008a; Patussi et al., 2010; Ugarte

Previous studies showed that individuals who perceive better oral health had a higher frequency of seeking preventive dental care (Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Matos&Lima-Costa, 2006; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al. 1999; Wu et al., 2011). In addition, poor SROH was associated significantly with unfavorable oral health behaviors (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010;

Associations between self-perceptions of general health status and SROH have been reported in several studies (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Benyamini et al, 2004; Okunseri et al.,

Psychosocial factors (e.g., self-esteem, mastery, personal control, life satisfaction, stress, sense of cohesion, depression, resilience, social support) were found to be related to SROH (Benyamini et al.,2004; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Martins et al.,2011; Peker &

SROH was also associated significantly with oral functional problems and concerns (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2010; Locker et al., 2009; Ugarte et al.,

This study used the household interview data which were collected during my PhD thesis. The survey was conducted by a market research company (Mayak) on a representative quota sample of 1200 Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over (response rate 88 %). This

Martins et al., 2010, 2011).

pattern, use of dental floss).

et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2011).

2008a, b).

2007).

**2. Method** 

**2.1 Data source and sample** 

Locker et al., 2009; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Wu et al., 2011).

Bermek, 2011; Sanders & Spencer, 2005; Wu et al., 2011).

2009), mostly in adult and elderly populations in different countries. A single-item global self-rating is a valid, reliable measure of oral health (Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007) and a good predictor of the use of oral health services (Abelsen, 2008; Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Locker & Miller, 1994; Matos &Lima-Costa, 2006; Maupomé & et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Petersen et al., 2000; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al. 1999; Wu et al., 2011). Nowadays, SROH has been widely used in nationwide and community-based surveys in many countries (Baker, 2009; Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2010; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Pattussi et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008a, 2008b; Sanders & Spencer, 2005; Wu et al., 2011) and in the first and second International Collaborative study of Oral Health Outcomes (Arnljot et al., 1985; Chen et al., 1997). In many studies, SROH have been used to assess the perceived need for dental care and dental treatment outcomes (Jones et al., 2001; Lundegren et al., 2011; Martins et al., 2009,2010; Seremidi et al., 2009) and to estimate the effect of oral conditions on people's quality of life and well-being (Benyamini et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2001; Kieffer & Hoogstraten, 2008; Locker et. al., 2005; Locker, 2009; Locker & Miller, 1994; Martins, 2009; Ostberg & Hall-Lord, 2011).

There are several reasons for investigating lay peoples' perceptions of their oral health. First, self-reported information has the advantage of being easier to gather in population-based samples compared to collecting data by clinical examinations. It also may be useful for estimating the resources needed to care for a specific population (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Jones et al., 2001; Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007; Wu et al., 2011). SROH is used frequently in many national health surveys when clinical evaluations are too costly and has been shown to be a valid and useful summary indicator of overall oral health status (Locker & Miller, 1994). Secondly, it can be a useful tool for planning and monitoring health services and health promotion interventions. It also could provide benefits to health care providers in monitoring outcomes and evaluating treatments. (Locker, 1996). Thirdly, SROH is an assessment of the functional, psychological, and social impact of oral disease and disorder ( Gilbert et al., 1998). Self-perceived oral health provides more information about how a certain disease affects an individual's life, rather than the objective measurements of this disease (Jones et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2009).

In Turkey, dental care for the adults needs to be improved and the identification of their self-perception of oral health could be the first step towards the development of oral health promotion programs aiming to increase awareness of oral health and to improve the oral health of Turkish adults (Gökalp et al., 2010; Kargul & Bakkal, 2010; Peker & Bermek, 2011). No studies have been published on a comprehensive appraisal of the full range of factors that may affect Turkish adults' perceptions of their oral health status, as measured by a single. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the main factors associated with good SROH in Istanbul adults.

#### **1.1 Conceptual framework**

This study used a multidimensional model of oral health for measuring the association of tooth pain and dental problems with SROH (Locker, 1988) and an expanded version of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization (Andersen & Davidson, 1997; Baker, 2009).

2009), mostly in adult and elderly populations in different countries. A single-item global self-rating is a valid, reliable measure of oral health (Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007) and a good predictor of the use of oral health services (Abelsen, 2008; Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Locker & Miller, 1994; Matos &Lima-Costa, 2006; Maupomé & et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Petersen et al., 2000; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al. 1999; Wu et al., 2011). Nowadays, SROH has been widely used in nationwide and community-based surveys in many countries (Baker, 2009; Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2010; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Pattussi et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008a, 2008b; Sanders & Spencer, 2005; Wu et al., 2011) and in the first and second International Collaborative study of Oral Health Outcomes (Arnljot et al., 1985; Chen et al., 1997). In many studies, SROH have been used to assess the perceived need for dental care and dental treatment outcomes (Jones et al., 2001; Lundegren et al., 2011; Martins et al., 2009,2010; Seremidi et al., 2009) and to estimate the effect of oral conditions on people's quality of life and well-being (Benyamini et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2001; Kieffer & Hoogstraten, 2008; Locker et. al., 2005; Locker, 2009; Locker & Miller, 1994; Martins, 2009; Ostberg & Hall-

There are several reasons for investigating lay peoples' perceptions of their oral health. First, self-reported information has the advantage of being easier to gather in population-based samples compared to collecting data by clinical examinations. It also may be useful for estimating the resources needed to care for a specific population (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Jones et al., 2001; Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007; Wu et al., 2011). SROH is used frequently in many national health surveys when clinical evaluations are too costly and has been shown to be a valid and useful summary indicator of overall oral health status (Locker & Miller, 1994). Secondly, it can be a useful tool for planning and monitoring health services and health promotion interventions. It also could provide benefits to health care providers in monitoring outcomes and evaluating treatments. (Locker, 1996). Thirdly, SROH is an assessment of the functional, psychological, and social impact of oral disease and disorder ( Gilbert et al., 1998). Self-perceived oral health provides more information about how a certain disease affects an individual's life, rather than the objective measurements of this disease (Jones et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2010;

In Turkey, dental care for the adults needs to be improved and the identification of their self-perception of oral health could be the first step towards the development of oral health promotion programs aiming to increase awareness of oral health and to improve the oral health of Turkish adults (Gökalp et al., 2010; Kargul & Bakkal, 2010; Peker & Bermek, 2011). No studies have been published on a comprehensive appraisal of the full range of factors that may affect Turkish adults' perceptions of their oral health status, as measured by a single. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the main factors associated with good

This study used a multidimensional model of oral health for measuring the association of tooth pain and dental problems with SROH (Locker, 1988) and an expanded version of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization (Andersen & Davidson, 1997;

Lord, 2011).

Martins et al., 2009).

SROH in Istanbul adults.

Baker, 2009).

**1.1 Conceptual framework** 

A multidimensional model of oral health is comprised of five dimensions: namely - oral disease and tissue damage, oral pain and discomfort, oral functional limitation, oral disadvantage, and self-rated oral health (Gilbert et al., 1998; Locker, 1988). The Andersen's Behavioral Model consists of variables distributed into four levels: exogenous variables, primary determinants of oral health, health behaviors, and oral health outcomes. This model proposes that a person's characteristics, beliefs, and behaviors will predict one's perceptions of oral health (Andersen, 1995). These models as conceptual framework were used to assess differences in the multitude of factors influencing oral health and to explain populationbased oral health behaviors and outcomes (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Baker, 2009; Gilbert, 2005; Martins et al., 2010, 2011).

In this study, these models were used to help develop the survey instrument and to guide data analysis, including the selection of variables for the logistic regression models. A set of independent individual-level variables were identified that may influence SROH: (1) exogenous variables (age, gender); (2) personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors - education, marital status, oral health locus of control (LOC) beliefs, perceived general health status; enabling characteristics - socio-economic status, having dental insurance; need factors - perceived dental treatment need, self-reported number of teeth, self-reported dental pain and dental problems, and (3) oral health behaviors (frequency of tooth brushing, dental attendance pattern, use of dental floss).

A number of studies showed that demographic and socio-economic variables such as gender, age, income and marital status have been associated with SROH (Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008a; Patussi et al., 2010; Ugarte et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2011).

Previous studies showed that individuals who perceive better oral health had a higher frequency of seeking preventive dental care (Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Matos&Lima-Costa, 2006; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al. 1999; Wu et al., 2011). In addition, poor SROH was associated significantly with unfavorable oral health behaviors (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Locker et al., 2009; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Wu et al., 2011).

Associations between self-perceptions of general health status and SROH have been reported in several studies (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Benyamini et al, 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008a, b).

Psychosocial factors (e.g., self-esteem, mastery, personal control, life satisfaction, stress, sense of cohesion, depression, resilience, social support) were found to be related to SROH (Benyamini et al.,2004; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Martins et al.,2011; Peker & Bermek, 2011; Sanders & Spencer, 2005; Wu et al., 2011).

SROH was also associated significantly with oral functional problems and concerns (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2010; Locker et al., 2009; Ugarte et al., 2007).

#### **2. Method**

#### **2.1 Data source and sample**

This study used the household interview data which were collected during my PhD thesis. The survey was conducted by a market research company (Mayak) on a representative quota sample of 1200 Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over (response rate 88 %). This

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 175

years). Socio–economic status (SES) was measured by using the VERI Socio-Economic Status Index (Tüzün, 2000). It is a social stratification model developed by the Veri Research Company in Turkey, made up of an equal-weight combination of values based on average educational level and working status of the household members, life facilitating property ownership, area of residence and house ownership. SES was categorized into three groups according to VERI Socio-Economic Status Index score: low (4-9), middle (11-14), and high (15-20). Marital status was recorded as married and not married (never married, separated, widowed or divorced). Health insurance status was coded as uninsured and insured. The Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale, a validated measure using 26 items assessed on a 4-point scale ranging 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree' was used to measure beliefs about adults' control over oral health (Peker & Bermek, 2011). This scale consists of four subscales, namely the Internal, External-Dentist, External-Chance, and External-Socialization agents. These subscales indicate the degree to which a person believes that his/her oral health outcomes are controlled by himself/herself, by chance, by the dentist's recommendation and advice, by the dentist's preventive dental care, or by socialization agents (e.g., family member, friends, colleagues, relatives etc.). Subscale scores are calculated by adding the scores of all the items within a particular subscale, and dividing the sum by the number of items. Higher scores reflect stronger endorsement of the subscales.

The data were analyzed by using SPSS version 11.5 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). A combination of descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistical methods was used for this analysis. Chi square test was used for categorical variables, and the independent sample t-test was use for continuous variables. Finally, a binary logistic regression analysis with stepwise backward elimination (likelihood ratio) was applied to determine the relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. The variables that had shown statistical significance at the 5% level in the bivariate analysis with at least one the outcomes studied were entered into the model for logistic regression analysis. Estimates of model fit (Omnibus test) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. In all statistical analyses, the significance level was set to p< 0.05. Age, education, and oral health LOC beliefs scores were entered as continuous variables in the model. Nagelkerke R2 was used to describe the proportion of

The sample consisted of 492 men and 487 women and the mean (SD) age was 36.52 (13.58) years; 68% had formal school education equal to or less than 8 years, 57% had a moderate SES, 57% were married, and 40 % had no health insurance. Overall, 65% of the study sample reported having bad oral health, while 71% rated general health as good. 18% reported having had regular dental checkups, 35% brushed twice a day or more. 29% of adults reported having dental pain during the past six months, 36% had dental problems, and 27% reported no need

Internal consistency reliability, as measured by Crohnbach's alpha, was 0.71 for the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale, and 0.82 for the Internal subscale, 0.79 for the

Cronbach's alpha of the scale in this sample was 0.71.

the total variance explained by the multivariate models.

for dental treatment. 67% reported that they had less than 20 teeth.

**2.3 Data analysis** 

**3. Results** 

cross-sectional survey was undertaken in November and December 2003. The present study sample was restricted to 979 adults who answered the question on the SROH. Data were collected through personal interviews and carried out in the participants' homes by eight trained professional interviewers. A detailed description of the sampling, design and procedures of the survey has been reported elsewhere (Peker&Bermek,2011). The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, the University of Istanbul approved the study protocol.

#### **2.2 Measures**

The dependent and independent variables which were used in this study are summarized below.

#### **2.2.1 Dependent variable**

SROH was assessed by using a single item question "How would you rate your oral health?" with possible ordinal responses: excellent, very good, good, fair and poor (Dolan et al., 1998). The answers were later dichotomized for analysis purposes, with participants who rated their oral health as excellent, very good, or good categorized as good and those who rated their oral health as fair or poor categorized as bad.

#### **2.2.2 Independent variables**

Independent variables were examined across for domains: (1) exogenous variables (age, gender); (2) personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors - education, marital status, oral health LOC beliefs, perceived general health status; enabling characteristics - socio-economic status, having dental insurance; need factors - perceived dental treatment need, self-reported number of teeth, self-reported dental pain and dental problem, and (3) oral health behaviors (frequency of tooth brushing and dental attendance pattern).

Perceived dental treatment need was measured by the response to the question "Do you perceive any need for dental treatment at the moment?" The response was either yes or no.

A sum score of reported oral problems was computed from questions on broken tooth, position of teeth, swollen gums, bad breaths, and ulcers in the mouth, bleeding gums, colour of the teeth and gum abscess. This score was dichotomized as no reported oral problems vs. reported at least one oral problem. Self-reported number of teeth was based on response to the item "How many of your own teeth do you have?", which was dichotomized as less than 20 teeth vs. 20 or more teeth. Dental pain was assessed by asking whether the person had a toothache in the last 6 months. The response was either yes or no. Self- perceived health status was measured using a single-item self-rating of health (Benyamini et al., 2004; Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Okunseri et al., 2008b). Self-rated health (SRH) was based on responses to a single item ("How do you consider your health in general?"), which was dichotomized as Good (excellent/good/fair) vs. Bad (poor/very poor). The measure of selfreported oral health behaviors included two questions: tooth brushing frequency (≥ twice a day, ≤ once a day); and dental attendance pattern (symptom–oriented / regular dental check–up at least once a year). Age was coded in three age categories: (18–30, 31–45, and 46 + years). Educational level was categorized into three groups according to years of completed schooling: primary (0–5 years), secondary (6–11 years), and higher (more than 11 years). Socio–economic status (SES) was measured by using the VERI Socio-Economic Status Index (Tüzün, 2000). It is a social stratification model developed by the Veri Research Company in Turkey, made up of an equal-weight combination of values based on average educational level and working status of the household members, life facilitating property ownership, area of residence and house ownership. SES was categorized into three groups according to VERI Socio-Economic Status Index score: low (4-9), middle (11-14), and high (15-20). Marital status was recorded as married and not married (never married, separated, widowed or divorced). Health insurance status was coded as uninsured and insured. The Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale, a validated measure using 26 items assessed on a 4-point scale ranging 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree' was used to measure beliefs about adults' control over oral health (Peker & Bermek, 2011). This scale consists of four subscales, namely the Internal, External-Dentist, External-Chance, and External-Socialization agents. These subscales indicate the degree to which a person believes that his/her oral health outcomes are controlled by himself/herself, by chance, by the dentist's recommendation and advice, by the dentist's preventive dental care, or by socialization agents (e.g., family member, friends, colleagues, relatives etc.). Subscale scores are calculated by adding the scores of all the items within a particular subscale, and dividing the sum by the number of items. Higher scores reflect stronger endorsement of the subscales. Cronbach's alpha of the scale in this sample was 0.71.

#### **2.3 Data analysis**

174 Oral Health Care – Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices

cross-sectional survey was undertaken in November and December 2003. The present study sample was restricted to 979 adults who answered the question on the SROH. Data were collected through personal interviews and carried out in the participants' homes by eight trained professional interviewers. A detailed description of the sampling, design and procedures of the survey has been reported elsewhere (Peker&Bermek,2011). The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, the University of Istanbul approved the study

The dependent and independent variables which were used in this study are summarized

SROH was assessed by using a single item question "How would you rate your oral health?" with possible ordinal responses: excellent, very good, good, fair and poor (Dolan et al., 1998). The answers were later dichotomized for analysis purposes, with participants who rated their oral health as excellent, very good, or good categorized as good and those who

Independent variables were examined across for domains: (1) exogenous variables (age, gender); (2) personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors - education, marital status, oral health LOC beliefs, perceived general health status; enabling characteristics - socio-economic status, having dental insurance; need factors - perceived dental treatment need, self-reported number of teeth, self-reported dental pain and dental problem, and (3) oral health

Perceived dental treatment need was measured by the response to the question "Do you perceive any need for dental treatment at the moment?" The response was either yes or

A sum score of reported oral problems was computed from questions on broken tooth, position of teeth, swollen gums, bad breaths, and ulcers in the mouth, bleeding gums, colour of the teeth and gum abscess. This score was dichotomized as no reported oral problems vs. reported at least one oral problem. Self-reported number of teeth was based on response to the item "How many of your own teeth do you have?", which was dichotomized as less than 20 teeth vs. 20 or more teeth. Dental pain was assessed by asking whether the person had a toothache in the last 6 months. The response was either yes or no. Self- perceived health status was measured using a single-item self-rating of health (Benyamini et al., 2004; Borrell & Baquero, 2011; Okunseri et al., 2008b). Self-rated health (SRH) was based on responses to a single item ("How do you consider your health in general?"), which was dichotomized as Good (excellent/good/fair) vs. Bad (poor/very poor). The measure of selfreported oral health behaviors included two questions: tooth brushing frequency (≥ twice a day, ≤ once a day); and dental attendance pattern (symptom–oriented / regular dental check–up at least once a year). Age was coded in three age categories: (18–30, 31–45, and 46 + years). Educational level was categorized into three groups according to years of completed schooling: primary (0–5 years), secondary (6–11 years), and higher (more than 11

protocol.

below.

no.

**2.2 Measures** 

**2.2.1 Dependent variable** 

**2.2.2 Independent variables** 

rated their oral health as fair or poor categorized as bad.

behaviors (frequency of tooth brushing and dental attendance pattern).

The data were analyzed by using SPSS version 11.5 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). A combination of descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistical methods was used for this analysis. Chi square test was used for categorical variables, and the independent sample t-test was use for continuous variables. Finally, a binary logistic regression analysis with stepwise backward elimination (likelihood ratio) was applied to determine the relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. The variables that had shown statistical significance at the 5% level in the bivariate analysis with at least one the outcomes studied were entered into the model for logistic regression analysis. Estimates of model fit (Omnibus test) and odds ratios (ORs) with their corresponding 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. In all statistical analyses, the significance level was set to p< 0.05. Age, education, and oral health LOC beliefs scores were entered as continuous variables in the model. Nagelkerke R2 was used to describe the proportion of the total variance explained by the multivariate models.

#### **3. Results**

The sample consisted of 492 men and 487 women and the mean (SD) age was 36.52 (13.58) years; 68% had formal school education equal to or less than 8 years, 57% had a moderate SES, 57% were married, and 40 % had no health insurance. Overall, 65% of the study sample reported having bad oral health, while 71% rated general health as good. 18% reported having had regular dental checkups, 35% brushed twice a day or more. 29% of adults reported having dental pain during the past six months, 36% had dental problems, and 27% reported no need for dental treatment. 67% reported that they had less than 20 teeth.

Internal consistency reliability, as measured by Crohnbach's alpha, was 0.71 for the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale, and 0.82 for the Internal subscale, 0.79 for the

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 177

SES Low 154 (24.3) 96 (27.8) 0.287

Health Insurance No 280 (44.2) 109 (31.6) <0.001

SRH Bad 537 (84.7) 266 (77.1) 0.003

Marital status Married 315 (49.7) 241 (69.9) <0.001

Dental pain Yes 486 (76.7) 206 (59.7) <0.001

Self-reported number of teeth 0-19 316 (49.8) 341 (98.8) <0.001

Self-reported dental problems No 416 (65.6) 213 (61.7) 0.227

Perceived dental treatment need No 177 (27.9) 82 (23.8) 0.160

Internal LOC beliefs ( Mean ± SD) 3.44 (0.42) 3.57 (0.42) <0.001 Dentist LOC beliefs ( Mean ± SD) 2.67 (0.54) 2.93 (0.60) <0.001 Chance LOC beliefs ( Mean ± SD) 2.01 (0.54) 1.90 (0.60) 0.006 Socialization agents LOC beliefs ( Mean ± SD) 2.71 (0.77) 2.68 (0.83) 0.602

Table 2. Predisposing, enabling and need characteristics of the studied sample according to

**Independent variables OR ( 95 % CI) P-value Age (years)** 2.03 (1.64–2.53) <0.001 **Dental attendance ( 0= regular, 1= symptoms-oriented )** 0.75 (0.59–0.94) 0.013 **Dentist LOC Beliefs (range=1–4)** 2.05 (1.52–2.76) <0.001 **Chance LOC Beliefs(range=0.86-4)** 0.62 (0.47–0.83) 0.001

Table 3. Stepwise binary logistic regression for the association between good SROH and the

Bad

SROH n (%)

Moderate 371 (58.5) 184 (53.3) High 109 (17.2) 65 (18.8)

Yes 354 (55.8) 236 (68.4)

Good 97 (15.3) 79 (22.9)

Non –married 319 (50.3) 104 (30.1)

No 148 (23.3) 139 (40.3)

20-32 318 (50.2) 4 (1.2)

Yes 218 (34.4) 132 (38.3)

Yes 457 (72.1) 263 (76.2)

Good SROH n (%)

P value

Independent variables

SD, standard deviation

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio

independent variables

SROH (n=979)

External/Dentist subscale, 0.71 for the External/Chance subscale, and 0.72 for the External/ Socialization agents subscale. The mean item subscale scores were 3.49 (SD=0.43, range = 1.82 - 4) for Internal, 2.77 (SD =0.57, range = 1-4) for External /Dentist, 1.97 (SD =0.57, range = 0.86 – 4) for External / Chance, and 2.70 (SD = 0.79, range = 0.50 – 4) for External/ Socialization agents


Table 1. Exogenous and behavioral characteristics of the studied sample according to SROH (n=979)

The frequencies of the independent variables were assessed in this study in relation to SROH are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Health insurance (P<0.001), gender (P=0.014), age (P<0.001), education (P=0.022), marital status (P<0.001), dental attendance pattern (P=0.003), Internal (P<0.001), Dentist (P<0.001), and Chance (P=0.006) oral health LOC beliefs, the selfreported number of teeth (P<0.001), dental pain (P<0.001), and SRH (P= 0.003) were significantly associated with the SROH. SROH was not associated with SES (P=0.287), the frequency of tooth brushing (P=0.143), having dental problems (P=0.227), perceived need for dental treatment (P=0.160), and Socialization agents LOC beliefs (P=0.602).

Stepwise binary logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association the independent variables with good SROH. In the final model, only four variables were found to be associated with good SROH. This model indicated a good fit (Ombinus test: chi-square = 445.200, p<0.0001) and with correct classification of 76.8 percent of the adults. The final model explained 52.4 % of the variance in good SROH (Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.524). As seen in Table 3, having good SROH was associated significantly with increasing age (P<0.001; odds ratio [OR]=2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.64 -2.53) regular dental attendance (P=0.013; odds ratio [OR]=0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.59 -0.94), higher Dentist LOC beliefs (P<0.001; odds ratio [OR]=2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.52–2.76), and lower Chance LOC beliefs (P=0.001; odds ratio [OR]=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.47–0.83).

External/Dentist subscale, 0.71 for the External/Chance subscale, and 0.72 for the External/ Socialization agents subscale. The mean item subscale scores were 3.49 (SD=0.43, range = 1.82 - 4) for Internal, 2.77 (SD =0.57, range = 1-4) for External /Dentist, 1.97 (SD =0.57, range = 0.86 – 4) for External / Chance, and 2.70 (SD = 0.79, range = 0.50 – 4) for External/

Gender Female 297 (46.8) 190 (55.1) 0.014

Age 18–30 years 328 (51.7) 72 (20.9) <0.001

Education Primary or less 418 (65.9) 244 (70.7) 0.022

Dental attendance Regular 97 (15.3) 79 (22.9) 0.003

Toothbrushing ≥ twice a day 208 (33.7) 127 (38.5) 0.143

Table 1. Exogenous and behavioral characteristics of the studied sample according to SROH

The frequencies of the independent variables were assessed in this study in relation to SROH are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Health insurance (P<0.001), gender (P=0.014), age (P<0.001), education (P=0.022), marital status (P<0.001), dental attendance pattern (P=0.003), Internal (P<0.001), Dentist (P<0.001), and Chance (P=0.006) oral health LOC beliefs, the selfreported number of teeth (P<0.001), dental pain (P<0.001), and SRH (P= 0.003) were significantly associated with the SROH. SROH was not associated with SES (P=0.287), the frequency of tooth brushing (P=0.143), having dental problems (P=0.227), perceived need for

Stepwise binary logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association the independent variables with good SROH. In the final model, only four variables were found to be associated with good SROH. This model indicated a good fit (Ombinus test: chi-square = 445.200, p<0.0001) and with correct classification of 76.8 percent of the adults. The final model explained 52.4 % of the variance in good SROH (Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.524). As seen in Table 3, having good SROH was associated significantly with increasing age (P<0.001; odds ratio [OR]=2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.64 -2.53) regular dental attendance (P=0.013; odds ratio [OR]=0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 0.59 -0.94), higher Dentist LOC beliefs (P<0.001; odds ratio [OR]=2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.52–2.76), and lower Chance LOC beliefs (P=0.001; odds ratio [OR]=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]=

dental treatment (P=0.160), and Socialization agents LOC beliefs (P=0.602).

Male 337 (53.2) 155 (44.9)

31–45 years 210 (33.1) 131 (38) 46 + years 96 (15.1) 142 (41.2)

Secondary 153 (24.1) 58 (16.8) Higher 63 (9.9) 43 (12.5)

Symptoms-oriented 537 (84.7) 266 (77.1)

≤ once a day 409 (66.3) 203 (61.5)

Bad SROH n (%)

Good SROH n (%)

P value

Socialization agents

(n=979)

0.47–0.83).

Independent variables


SD, standard deviation

Table 2. Predisposing, enabling and need characteristics of the studied sample according to SROH (n=979)


CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio

Table 3. Stepwise binary logistic regression for the association between good SROH and the independent variables

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 179

Consistent with previous studies (Abelsen, 2008; Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Locker & Miller, 1994; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Maupomé et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Petersen et al., 2000; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2011), we found that good SROH was strongly associated with regular dental attendance. It is known that an important part of maintaining good oral health is the

A recent qualitative study showed that adults rating their oral health as "excellent" were more likely to refer to health behaviors such as brushing and flossing twice a day and regular preventive dental visits (Locker et al., 2009). In previous studies, tooth brushing frequency was found to be related to SROH among both Korean adults aged 45-64 years (Kim et al., 2010) and Hmong adults living in the United States (Okunseri et al., 2008b). In contrast, in the present study and other ones (Martins et al., 2011), the frequency of tooth

Dental insurance is associated with SROH consistent with previous studies (Coulter et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b). In our country, the national health insurance system was introduced in 2008 and covers oral health care. Recent study showed that if enrollees' outof-pocket costs were increased for dental care, there was a decreasing likelihood of their

We found that dental pain was associated with poor SROH consistent with previous studies (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Locker et. al, 2010; Martins et al., 2010) . We found that SROH was not associated with perceived treatment need and having oral problems. However, these results were different from previous studies and reported that the perceived need was greater among individuals who perceived that their oral health was poor/very poor (Kim et al., 2009; Martins, 2009, 2010; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006). SROH was associated with self– reported oral functional or psychological limitations (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Gift et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2009; Martins et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Ojofeitimi et al, 2007; Seremidi et al., 2009). Adults who rated their oral health as "poor" were more likely to report having a current oral problem and perceived treatment needs (Locker et al., 2009). Self-perceived need for treatment was usually measured by asking people about the existence of any dental problems or by using constructed variables that combined the need for treatment with the existence of signs and symptoms of diseases, because functional and psychological impacts of the oral disease seem to be as important, if not more, as the clinical indicators while estimating the dental needs (Seremidi et al., 2009). In this study, self-perceived need for treatment was measured by asking whether or not the respondent had a need for dental treatment. Oral functional limitation related to oral health problems was not measured. We found an inverse association between SROH and the number of self-reported natural teeth. This finding is inconsistent with previous studies showing that having higher natural teeth is strongly associated with good SROH (Jones et al., 2001; Okunseri et al., 2008 a,b; Ugarte et al., 2007). This may be explained by the fact the adults assessed their oral health positively when they could chew everything and were free from a long history of pain and other problems associated with the natural dentition (Kim et al., 2010; Locker et. al, 2005; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Martins et al., 2010, 2009). The decision to use the numbers of self-reported natural teeth as subjective oral health outcome in this study was made for a number of reasons. In this study, the association was further analyzed by creating two categories of remaining teeth (1–19 and 20–32 teeth), because these criteria for the number of teeth are widely used in research from several different age groups and in different

use of appropriate dental services (Petersen & Yamamoto, 2005).

brushing is not associated with self-perception.

reporting excellent oral health (Coulter et al., 2004).

#### **4. Discussion**

This study is one of the first to examine a global rating of oral health among Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over using a a representative quota sample. SROH is subjective patientcentered measure of oral health which involve the individual in the decision making process and assessment of their oral health (Locker,1988; Pinelli & Loffredo,2007). Thus, the subjective evaluation of oral health conditions of adults affected by cultural beliefs and socio-demographic and behavioral factors is more important for designing effective oral health programs and services (Andersen & Davidson, 2007; Butani et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 1998; Kaplan & Baron-Epel, 2003; Kim et al., 2010; Matthias et al., 1995; Pattussi et.al, 2010).

The focus of this study analysis centers around the relation of a comprehensive set of exogenous variables, personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors, enabling characteristics, need factors) and oral health behavioral characteristics.

Bivariate analysis showed that being female, having regular dental attendance, having health insurance, bad SRH, older age, being married, and having lower natural teeth were strongly associated with good SROH.

In contrast to previous studies (Gift et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Reisine & Bailit,1980), we found that older adults were more likely to rate their oral health better than younger adults. Consistent with previous studies (Patussi et al., 2010; Reisine & Bailit, 1980), we found that males tended to rate their oral health worse than females. There are some variations in the referents which were used for the SROH according to sociodemographic characteristics, with age being the main source of variation (Locker et al., 2009). Age and sex differences in perceived oral health could be attributed to differences in oral health related expectations (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Carr et al., 2001).

Istanbul adults with lower education level were more likely to report good SROH. It is known that the use of specific referents for the self-assessment health may vary by education (Krause & Jay, 1994). This finding was inconsistent with previous studies suggesting that less educated adults were more likely to rate their oral health as fair poor (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Finlayson et al., 2010; Gift et al., 1998; Matthias et al., 1995). This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that Turkish adults with lower education level have lower levels of health literacy (Ozdemir et al., 2010). Recent studies suggest that health literacy is associated with educational attainment in self-rated health and in regular dental attendance pattern among older adults (Bennett et al., 2009). In addition, oral health literacyrelated outcomes are risk indicators for poor self-reported oral health among rural-dwelling Indigenous Australians (Parker & Jamieson, 2010).

We found that adults who were married were more likely to report good SROH. Similar finding has been reported in a recent study conducted in Somali adults (Okunseri et al., 2008a).

Associations between SROH and socio-economic position markers (e.g., education, occupation, household income, household wealth, subjective social status and childhood socio-economic position) have been reported in several studies (Borrell&Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Pattussi et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011). In contrast, in the present study, SES (measured by the VERI Socio-Economic Status Index) is not associated with SROH. This discrepancy may be due to using composite SES index instead of wellaccepted indicators of SES.

This study is one of the first to examine a global rating of oral health among Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over using a a representative quota sample. SROH is subjective patientcentered measure of oral health which involve the individual in the decision making process and assessment of their oral health (Locker,1988; Pinelli & Loffredo,2007). Thus, the subjective evaluation of oral health conditions of adults affected by cultural beliefs and socio-demographic and behavioral factors is more important for designing effective oral health programs and services (Andersen & Davidson, 2007; Butani et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 1998; Kaplan & Baron-Epel, 2003; Kim et al., 2010; Matthias et al., 1995; Pattussi et.al, 2010). The focus of this study analysis centers around the relation of a comprehensive set of exogenous variables, personal characteristics of primary determinants of oral health (predisposing socio-demographic and health beliefs factors, enabling characteristics, need

Bivariate analysis showed that being female, having regular dental attendance, having health insurance, bad SRH, older age, being married, and having lower natural teeth were

In contrast to previous studies (Gift et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2010; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Reisine & Bailit,1980), we found that older adults were more likely to rate their oral health better than younger adults. Consistent with previous studies (Patussi et al., 2010; Reisine & Bailit, 1980), we found that males tended to rate their oral health worse than females. There are some variations in the referents which were used for the SROH according to sociodemographic characteristics, with age being the main source of variation (Locker et al., 2009). Age and sex differences in perceived oral health could be attributed to differences in

Istanbul adults with lower education level were more likely to report good SROH. It is known that the use of specific referents for the self-assessment health may vary by education (Krause & Jay, 1994). This finding was inconsistent with previous studies suggesting that less educated adults were more likely to rate their oral health as fair poor (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Finlayson et al., 2010; Gift et al., 1998; Matthias et al., 1995). This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that Turkish adults with lower education level have lower levels of health literacy (Ozdemir et al., 2010). Recent studies suggest that health literacy is associated with educational attainment in self-rated health and in regular dental attendance pattern among older adults (Bennett et al., 2009). In addition, oral health literacyrelated outcomes are risk indicators for poor self-reported oral health among rural-dwelling

We found that adults who were married were more likely to report good SROH. Similar finding has been reported in a recent study conducted in Somali adults (Okunseri et al.,

Associations between SROH and socio-economic position markers (e.g., education, occupation, household income, household wealth, subjective social status and childhood socio-economic position) have been reported in several studies (Borrell&Baquero, 2011; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Pattussi et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011). In contrast, in the present study, SES (measured by the VERI Socio-Economic Status Index) is not associated with SROH. This discrepancy may be due to using composite SES index instead of well-

oral health related expectations (Ekbäck et al., 2009; Carr et al., 2001).

**4. Discussion** 

factors) and oral health behavioral characteristics.

Indigenous Australians (Parker & Jamieson, 2010).

2008a).

accepted indicators of SES.

strongly associated with good SROH.

Consistent with previous studies (Abelsen, 2008; Araújo et al., 2009; Camargo et al., 2009; Gilbert et al., 2003; Locker & Miller, 1994; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Maupomé et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b; Pavi et al., 2010; Petersen et al., 2000; Thomson et al., 2010; Woolfolk et al., 1999; Wu et al., 2011), we found that good SROH was strongly associated with regular dental attendance. It is known that an important part of maintaining good oral health is the use of appropriate dental services (Petersen & Yamamoto, 2005).

A recent qualitative study showed that adults rating their oral health as "excellent" were more likely to refer to health behaviors such as brushing and flossing twice a day and regular preventive dental visits (Locker et al., 2009). In previous studies, tooth brushing frequency was found to be related to SROH among both Korean adults aged 45-64 years (Kim et al., 2010) and Hmong adults living in the United States (Okunseri et al., 2008b). In contrast, in the present study and other ones (Martins et al., 2011), the frequency of tooth brushing is not associated with self-perception.

Dental insurance is associated with SROH consistent with previous studies (Coulter et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008b). In our country, the national health insurance system was introduced in 2008 and covers oral health care. Recent study showed that if enrollees' outof-pocket costs were increased for dental care, there was a decreasing likelihood of their reporting excellent oral health (Coulter et al., 2004).

We found that dental pain was associated with poor SROH consistent with previous studies (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Locker et. al, 2010; Martins et al., 2010) . We found that SROH was not associated with perceived treatment need and having oral problems. However, these results were different from previous studies and reported that the perceived need was greater among individuals who perceived that their oral health was poor/very poor (Kim et al., 2009; Martins, 2009, 2010; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006). SROH was associated with self– reported oral functional or psychological limitations (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Gift et al., 1998; Kim et al., 2009; Martins et al., 2009, 2010, 2011; Ojofeitimi et al, 2007; Seremidi et al., 2009). Adults who rated their oral health as "poor" were more likely to report having a current oral problem and perceived treatment needs (Locker et al., 2009). Self-perceived need for treatment was usually measured by asking people about the existence of any dental problems or by using constructed variables that combined the need for treatment with the existence of signs and symptoms of diseases, because functional and psychological impacts of the oral disease seem to be as important, if not more, as the clinical indicators while estimating the dental needs (Seremidi et al., 2009). In this study, self-perceived need for treatment was measured by asking whether or not the respondent had a need for dental treatment. Oral functional limitation related to oral health problems was not measured.

We found an inverse association between SROH and the number of self-reported natural teeth. This finding is inconsistent with previous studies showing that having higher natural teeth is strongly associated with good SROH (Jones et al., 2001; Okunseri et al., 2008 a,b; Ugarte et al., 2007). This may be explained by the fact the adults assessed their oral health positively when they could chew everything and were free from a long history of pain and other problems associated with the natural dentition (Kim et al., 2010; Locker et. al, 2005; Matos & Lima-Costa, 2006; Martins et al., 2010, 2009). The decision to use the numbers of self-reported natural teeth as subjective oral health outcome in this study was made for a number of reasons. In this study, the association was further analyzed by creating two categories of remaining teeth (1–19 and 20–32 teeth), because these criteria for the number of teeth are widely used in research from several different age groups and in different

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 181

The results of multivariate analyses showed that good SROH was strongly associated with regular dental attendance, older age, a higher Dentist LOC beliefs and a lower Chance LOC beliefs. The final model explained 52.4 % of the variance in good SROH (Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.524). Two components of the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale were predictors of good SROH among Istanbul adults. This is in contrast to a previous study that suggests that oral health beliefs represent a distinct dimension which may not be critical to a study of

There are several limitations to this study that should be considered in the interpretation of the results. This study did not include clinical measures and examinations by dentists, and therefore the results pertain only to the associations found between self-reports of oral health. Thus, future studies are needed to evaluate the relationships between the clinical measures and self-reported oral health measures in adult population. Future study is needed to assess the validity and reproducibility of self-reported oral health (Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007). Data were collected via self-report questionnaires, which might have introduced a "social desirability" bias. The cross-sectional design did not explain causation and changes over time in SROH. However, it does suggest future research questions on the development of the model of SROH in adults. Longitudinal studies would increase the knowledge on determinants of SROH further. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the time sequence between some covariates and oral health was not well defined. There may be unmeasured factors such as cultural attitudes toward oral health and dental care, oral health outcomes, clinical status, psychological factors, and institutional barriers that could contribute to the differences in SROH among populations. We used the composite SES index to measure the socio-economic status of respondents. Some studies of SES and health have suggested that income is the best SES predictor of the SRH and SROH (Locker, 2009; Nummela et al., Sanders et al., 2006, von dem Knesebeck et al., 2003). Thus,

future studies are needed to examine the association between income and SROH.

Further qualitative studies are needed to investigate the referents and meanings that underlie SROH and to examine the relationship between SROH and SRH among adults. To measure the clinical, functional and psychosocial outcomes of oral disorders, future studies should be focused on the relation of SROH to the clinical measures and comprehensive subjective oral health measures. In addition, future studies using a combined measure of perceived need of any dental care may provide more detailed information about the relationship among SROH, self-perceived need for treatment and oral

This study is one of the first to examine a global rating of oral health among Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over using a a representative quota sample. Almost half of the study sample rated their oral health as bad. Older age, regular dental visit, a higher Dentist LOC beliefs and a lower Chance LOC beliefs are significantly associated with good SROH. Oral health programs and services should not only target treatments for dental disease, but should also include component that determine the subjective evaluation of oral health conditions of adults affected by cultural health beliefs, socio-demographic and behavioral

perceived oral health (Atchison &Gif, 1997).

functional limitation (Seremidi et al., 2009).

**5. Conclusions** 

**4.1 Limitations of the study and implications for future research** 

countries (Axelsson & Helgadottir, 1995; Pitiphat et al, 2002; Ueno et al., 2010; Unell et al., 1997). Studies show that the number of natural teeth estimated by questionnaires is in good agreement with clinical examinations ( Pitiphat et al, 2002; Unell et al., 1997) and patients' reported number of remaining teeth provide reasonably valid data on the actual number of teeth within a population group (Ueno et al., 2010). Furthermore, self-reported data would be used for measuring oral health conditions in populations at lower cost, less resource involvement and within shorter timeframes (Jones et al., 2001). Due to the limited budget and the deadline for the completion of the study, performing a clinical examination was not feasible in this study.

We found an inverse relationship between SROH and SRH. Although many studies suggest that the individuals who reported good/excellent oral health are more likely to report good/excellent general health (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Benyamini et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008a,b), we found an inverse relationship between SROH and SRH. This result is consistent with previous studies suggesting that there is a deficit in perceptions of oral health relative to general health at all stages of adulthood and spanning the socio-economic spectrum (Sanders & Slade, 2006). Oral health and general health appear to be mostly unrelated in healthy population, because oral health and general health have different determinants (Kieffer & Hoogstraten, 2008).

In addition to material and behavioral factors, psychosocial factors may mediate the link between individual socio-economic status and health (Finlayson et al., 2010, Locker, 2009; Poortinga et al, 2008). Thus, many studies have examined the association between psychosocial factors (e.g.self-esteem, life satisfaction, stress, self-confidence, self-liking, selfcompetence, perfectionism, sense of cohesion, depression, resilience, social support) and oral health in adults (Benyamini et al., 2004; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Martins et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011). There are a few studies that have examined the relationship between personal control and SROH (Finlayson et al., 2010, Sanders & Spencer, 2005). In this study, the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale was used to measure beliefs about adults' control over oral health (Peker & Bermek., 2011). The relationship between the SROH and LOC beliefs has been investigated only in a few studies (Kent et al., 1984; Peker & Bermek, 2011). Consistent with these studies, we also found that adults with high Dentist LOC and low Chance LOC were more likely to report good SROH. The findings of a recent study in Istanbul adults (Peker& Bermek, 2011) support the results of prior studies that health beliefs may mediate the link between individual socio-economic status and health (Broadbent et al., 2006; Butani et al., 2008, , Kiyak,1993; Poortinga et al., 2008). It is known that oral health beliefs influence adult's oral health behavior and self-ratings of oral health (Broadbent et al., 2006; Butani et al., 2008, , Kiyak,1993). Numerous studies showed that LOC beliefs were strongly associated with general and oral health behaviors (Bailey et al., 1981; Borkowska et al., 1998; Grotz et al., 2011; Mangelsdorff & Brush, 1978; Norman et al., 1998; Peker & Bermek, 2011, Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). Individuals who have strong beliefs in Internal control and in the control of Powerful others and weak beliefs in Chance control are likely to develop advantageous health behavior (Grotz et al., 2011; Norman et al., 1998; Peker & Bermek, 2011, , Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). An understanding of the role of oral health beliefs on self-ratings oral health may be useful in the design of oral health promotion programs and it provides clear guidance to assist oral health professionals to promote favorable oral health behaviors in their patients (Butani et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 1998; Holt et al.,2003; Lee etal., 1993; Nakazono et al., 1997; Peker & Bermek, 2011).

countries (Axelsson & Helgadottir, 1995; Pitiphat et al, 2002; Ueno et al., 2010; Unell et al., 1997). Studies show that the number of natural teeth estimated by questionnaires is in good agreement with clinical examinations ( Pitiphat et al, 2002; Unell et al., 1997) and patients' reported number of remaining teeth provide reasonably valid data on the actual number of teeth within a population group (Ueno et al., 2010). Furthermore, self-reported data would be used for measuring oral health conditions in populations at lower cost, less resource involvement and within shorter timeframes (Jones et al., 2001). Due to the limited budget and the deadline for the completion of the study, performing a clinical examination was not

We found an inverse relationship between SROH and SRH. Although many studies suggest that the individuals who reported good/excellent oral health are more likely to report good/excellent general health (Atchison & Gift, 1997; Benyamini et al., 2004; Okunseri et al., 2008a,b), we found an inverse relationship between SROH and SRH. This result is consistent with previous studies suggesting that there is a deficit in perceptions of oral health relative to general health at all stages of adulthood and spanning the socio-economic spectrum (Sanders & Slade, 2006). Oral health and general health appear to be mostly unrelated in healthy population, because oral health and general health have different determinants

In addition to material and behavioral factors, psychosocial factors may mediate the link between individual socio-economic status and health (Finlayson et al., 2010, Locker, 2009; Poortinga et al, 2008). Thus, many studies have examined the association between psychosocial factors (e.g.self-esteem, life satisfaction, stress, self-confidence, self-liking, selfcompetence, perfectionism, sense of cohesion, depression, resilience, social support) and oral health in adults (Benyamini et al., 2004; Finlayson et al., 2010; Locker, 2009; Martins et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011). There are a few studies that have examined the relationship between personal control and SROH (Finlayson et al., 2010, Sanders & Spencer, 2005). In this study, the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale was used to measure beliefs about adults' control over oral health (Peker & Bermek., 2011). The relationship between the SROH and LOC beliefs has been investigated only in a few studies (Kent et al., 1984; Peker & Bermek, 2011). Consistent with these studies, we also found that adults with high Dentist LOC and low Chance LOC were more likely to report good SROH. The findings of a recent study in Istanbul adults (Peker& Bermek, 2011) support the results of prior studies that health beliefs may mediate the link between individual socio-economic status and health (Broadbent et al., 2006; Butani et al., 2008, , Kiyak,1993; Poortinga et al., 2008). It is known that oral health beliefs influence adult's oral health behavior and self-ratings of oral health (Broadbent et al., 2006; Butani et al., 2008, , Kiyak,1993). Numerous studies showed that LOC beliefs were strongly associated with general and oral health behaviors (Bailey et al., 1981; Borkowska et al., 1998; Grotz et al., 2011; Mangelsdorff & Brush, 1978; Norman et al., 1998; Peker & Bermek, 2011, Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). Individuals who have strong beliefs in Internal control and in the control of Powerful others and weak beliefs in Chance control are likely to develop advantageous health behavior (Grotz et al., 2011; Norman et al., 1998; Peker & Bermek, 2011, , Steptoe & Wardle, 2001). An understanding of the role of oral health beliefs on self-ratings oral health may be useful in the design of oral health promotion programs and it provides clear guidance to assist oral health professionals to promote favorable oral health behaviors in their patients (Butani et al., 2008; Gilbert et al., 1998; Holt

et al.,2003; Lee etal., 1993; Nakazono et al., 1997; Peker & Bermek, 2011).

feasible in this study.

(Kieffer & Hoogstraten, 2008).

The results of multivariate analyses showed that good SROH was strongly associated with regular dental attendance, older age, a higher Dentist LOC beliefs and a lower Chance LOC beliefs. The final model explained 52.4 % of the variance in good SROH (Nagelkerke's R2 = 0.524). Two components of the Multidimensional Oral Health LOC Scale were predictors of good SROH among Istanbul adults. This is in contrast to a previous study that suggests that oral health beliefs represent a distinct dimension which may not be critical to a study of perceived oral health (Atchison &Gif, 1997).

#### **4.1 Limitations of the study and implications for future research**

There are several limitations to this study that should be considered in the interpretation of the results. This study did not include clinical measures and examinations by dentists, and therefore the results pertain only to the associations found between self-reports of oral health. Thus, future studies are needed to evaluate the relationships between the clinical measures and self-reported oral health measures in adult population. Future study is needed to assess the validity and reproducibility of self-reported oral health (Pinelli & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo, 2007). Data were collected via self-report questionnaires, which might have introduced a "social desirability" bias. The cross-sectional design did not explain causation and changes over time in SROH. However, it does suggest future research questions on the development of the model of SROH in adults. Longitudinal studies would increase the knowledge on determinants of SROH further. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the time sequence between some covariates and oral health was not well defined. There may be unmeasured factors such as cultural attitudes toward oral health and dental care, oral health outcomes, clinical status, psychological factors, and institutional barriers that could contribute to the differences in SROH among populations. We used the composite SES index to measure the socio-economic status of respondents. Some studies of SES and health have suggested that income is the best SES predictor of the SRH and SROH (Locker, 2009; Nummela et al., Sanders et al., 2006, von dem Knesebeck et al., 2003). Thus, future studies are needed to examine the association between income and SROH.

Further qualitative studies are needed to investigate the referents and meanings that underlie SROH and to examine the relationship between SROH and SRH among adults.

To measure the clinical, functional and psychosocial outcomes of oral disorders, future studies should be focused on the relation of SROH to the clinical measures and comprehensive subjective oral health measures. In addition, future studies using a combined measure of perceived need of any dental care may provide more detailed information about the relationship among SROH, self-perceived need for treatment and oral functional limitation (Seremidi et al., 2009).

#### **5. Conclusions**

This study is one of the first to examine a global rating of oral health among Istanbul adults aged 18 years and over using a a representative quota sample. Almost half of the study sample rated their oral health as bad. Older age, regular dental visit, a higher Dentist LOC beliefs and a lower Chance LOC beliefs are significantly associated with good SROH. Oral health programs and services should not only target treatments for dental disease, but should also include component that determine the subjective evaluation of oral health conditions of adults affected by cultural health beliefs, socio-demographic and behavioral

The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 183

Axelsson, G& Helgadottir, S. (1995). Comparison of oral health data from self-administered

Bailey, C.; Dey, F.; Reynolds, K.; Rutter, G.; Teoh, T. & Peck, C. (1981). What are the

Baker, S.R. (2009). Applying Andersen's behavioural model to oral health: what are the

Baran, I.& Nalcaci, R . (2011). Self-reported problems before and after prosthodontic

adults. *Annals of Family Medicine*, Vol.7, No.3, pp.204-211, ISSN 1544-1709 Benyamini,Y.; Leventhal, H.& Leventhal, E.A.(2004). Self-rated oral health as an

Borrell, L.N. & Baquero, M.C. (2011). Self-rated general and oral health in New York City

Broadbent, J.M.; Thomson, W.M. & Poulton, R. (2006). Oral health beliefs in adolescence and

Butani, Y.; Weintraub, J.A. & Barker, J.C. (2008). Oral health-related cultural beliefs for four

Caglayan, F.; Altun, O.; Miloglu, O.; Kaya, M.D.& Yilmaz, A.B.(2009). Correlation between

Camargo, M.B.; Dumith, S.C. & Barros, A.J. (2009). Regular use of dental care services by

Carr, A.J.; Gibson, B. & Robinson, P.G. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Is quality of life

Chen, M.;Andersen, R.M.; Barmes, D.E.; Leclercq, M.H.& Lyttle, C.S. (1997). *Comparing oral* 

Coulter, I.; Yamamoto, J.M.; Marcus, M.; Freed, J.; Der-Martirosian, C.; Guzman-Becerra, N.;

Available from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/8/26

*Social science & medicine,* Vol.59, No.5, pp.1109–1116, ISSN 0277-9536 Borkowska, E.D.; Watts, T.L.P.& Weinman, J. (1998). The relationship of health beliefs and

*Clinical Periodontology*, Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 187-193, ISSN 0303-6979

*and Oral Epidemiology*, Vol.37, No.6, pp.485-494, ISSN 0301-5661

Vol. 23, No.6, pp. 365–368, ISSN 0301-5661

46–48, ISSN 0045-0421

5661

ISSN 0022-0345

ISSN:1698-4447

No.9, pp. 1894-1906, ISSN 0102-311X

pp. 1240-1243, ISSN 0959-8138

*2*,Geneva,Switzerland.

questionnaire and clinical examination. *Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology*,

variables related to dental compliance? *Australian Dental Journal,* Vol. 26, No.1, pp.

contextual factors shaping perceived oral health outcomes? *Community Dentistry* 

treatments according to newly created Turkish version of oral health impact profile. *Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics,* Vol.53,No.2, pp.e99-e105, ISSN 0167-4943 Bennett, I.M.; Chen, J.; Soroui, J.S. & White, S.(2009). The contribution of health literacy to

disparities in self-rated health status and preventive health behaviors in older

independent predictor of self- rated general health, self-esteem and life satisfaction.

psychological mood to patient adherence to oral hygiene behaviour. *Journal of* 

adults: assessing the effect of individual and neighborhood social factors. *Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology*, Vol.39, No.4, pp.361-371, ISSN 0301-

oral health in young adulthood. *Journal of Dental Research*, Vol. 85, No.4,pp.339-343,

racial/ethnic groups: assessment of the literature. *BioMed Central Oral Health*, Vol. 8,

oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) and oral disorders in a Turkish patient population. *Medicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia*, Vol.14, No.11, pp. e573-578,

adults: patterns of utilization and types of services. *Cadernos de saúde pública,*Vol.25,

defined by expectations or experience? *British Medical Journal*, Vol.322, No. 7296,

*healthcare systems*, World Health. Organization, *ISBN 92*-*4*-*156188*-

Brown, L.J. & Guay, A. (2004). Self-reported oral health of enrollees in capitated

factors. There is no oral health policy emphasizing prevention-oriented dental care and regular dental visit in Turkey. The results of this study could provide helpful information for oral health professionals to develop national oral health policy. Taking into account the oral health LOC beliefs that reinforce a good SROH may help the oral health professionals and dental health educators to develop health promotion programs. Age – specific oral health education and promotion programs is a good starting point for increasing oral health awareness and knowledge about the associations between oral and general health as well as improving regular dental attendance of Istanbul adults.

#### **6. Acknowledgement**

The data used in this paper were derived from my doctoral dissertation; I would like to thank my dissertation committee of Gülçin Bermek, Mustafa Şenocak and Nesrin Hisli Şahin for their advice and comments. I thank Mr. Necdet Süt and Dr. Ömer Uysal for their help with the statistical analysis and to Mr. Taner Gönç for his help processing and collecting data. This study was financially supported by the Istanbul University Research Foundation (Grant no. T-217 / 06032003).

#### **7. References**


factors. There is no oral health policy emphasizing prevention-oriented dental care and regular dental visit in Turkey. The results of this study could provide helpful information for oral health professionals to develop national oral health policy. Taking into account the oral health LOC beliefs that reinforce a good SROH may help the oral health professionals and dental health educators to develop health promotion programs. Age – specific oral health education and promotion programs is a good starting point for increasing oral health awareness and knowledge about the associations between oral and general health as well as

The data used in this paper were derived from my doctoral dissertation; I would like to thank my dissertation committee of Gülçin Bermek, Mustafa Şenocak and Nesrin Hisli Şahin for their advice and comments. I thank Mr. Necdet Süt and Dr. Ömer Uysal for their help with the statistical analysis and to Mr. Taner Gönç for his help processing and collecting data. This study was financially supported by the Istanbul University Research Foundation

Abelsen, B. (2008). What a difference a place makes: Dental attendance and self-rated oral

Akarslan, Z.Z.; Sadik, B.; Sadik, E.& Erten, H. (2008). Dietary habits and oral health related

Andersen, R. M. (1995) Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? *Journal of Health and Social Behavior*, Vol. 36, No.1,pp. 1-10, ISSN 0022-1465 Andersen, R.M.& Davidson, P.L.(1997). Ethnicity, aging, and oral health outcomes: A

Araújo, C.S.; Lima Rda, C.; Peres, M.A.& Barros, A.J.(2009). Use of dental services and

Arnljot, H.A.; Barnes, D.E.; Cohen, L.K.; Hunter, P.B.V.& Ship I.I.(1985). *Oral health care* 

Arslan, A.; Orhan, K.; Canpolat, C.; Delilbasi, C.& Dural, S. (2009). Impact of xerostomia on

Atchison, K.A.& Gift, H.C. (1997). Perceived oral health in a diverse sample. *Advances in* 

*of Gerontology and Geriatrics,* Vol.49, No.2, pp.263-267, ISSN 0167-4943 Atchison, K.A. & Andersen, R.M. (2000). Demonstrating Successful Aging Using the

*pública*, Vol. 25, No.5, pp.1063-1072, ISSN 0102-311X

*Dentistry*, Vol.60, No.4, pp: 282-288, ISSN 0022-4006

*Dental Research,* Vol.11, No.2, pp.:272-280, ISSN 0895-9374

ISBN 9781850970019, London, England.

health among adults in three counties in Norway. *Health & Place*, Vol.14, No.4,

behaviors in relation to DMFT indexes of a group of young adult patients attending a dental school*. Medicina Oral Patologia Oral y Cirugia,* Vol.13, No.12, pp. E800-E807,

conceptual framework. *Advances in Dental Research*, Vol.11, No.2, pp.203–209.

associated factors: a population-based study in southern Brazil. *Cadernos de saúde* 

*systems: an international collaborative study*, Quintessence Publishing Company Ltd,

oral complaints in a group of elderly Turkish removable denture wearers. *Archives* 

International Collaborative Study for Oral Health Outcomes. *Journal of Public Health* 

improving regular dental attendance of Istanbul adults.

**6. Acknowledgement** 

(Grant no. T-217 / 06032003).

ISSN:1698-4447

ISSN:0895-9374

pp.829–840, ISSN 1353-8292

**7. References** 


The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 185

Kargul, B. & Bakkal, M. (2010). Systems for the previsions of oral health care in the Black Sea

Kent, G.G.; Matthews, R.G. & White, F.H. (1984) Locus of control and oral health. *The Journal of the American Dental Association,*Vol. 109, No.1, pp. 67–69, ISSN 0002-8177 Kieffer, J.M.& Hoogstraten, J. (2008).Linking oral health, general health, and quality of life. *European Journal of Oral Sciences*, Vol.116, No.5, pp.445-450, ISSN 0909-8836. Kim, H.Y.; Patton,L.L.& Park, Y.D. (2010). Assessment of predictors of global self-ratings of

Kiyak, H,A. (1993). Age and culture: influences on oral health behaviour. *International Dental* 

Krause, N.M. & Jay, G.M. (1994). What do global self-rated health items measure? *Medical* 

Lee, K.L.; Schwarz, E. & Mak, K.Y. (1993) Improving oral health through understanding the

Locker, D. & Gibson, B. (2005). Discrepancies between self-ratings of and satisfaction with

Locker, D. (1988). Measuring oral health: a conceptual framework. *Community Dental Health,* 

Locker, D. (1996). Applications of self-reported assessments of oral health outcomes. *Journal* 

Locker, D. (2009). Self-esteem and socioeconomic disparities in self-perceived oral health. *Journal of Public Health Dentistry,* Vol.69, No.1, pp.1-8, ISSN 0022-4006 . Locker, D.& Miller, Y. (1994). Subjectively reported oral health status in an adult population.

Locker, D.; Maggirias, J. & Wexler, E. (2009). What frames of reference underlie self-ratings

Locker, D.; Wexler, E. & Jokovic, A. (2005). What do older adults' global self-ratings of oral

Lundegren, N.; Axtelius, B.; Akerman, S.; Perera, I. &, Ekanayake, L. (2011) Self perceived

Mangelsdorff, A.D. & Brush, W.A. (1978) Locus of control as a predictor of dental care

Martins, A.B.; Dos Santos, C.M.; Hilgert, J.B.; de Marchi, R.J.; Hugo, F.N.& Pereira Padilha,

pp. 115-121, ISSN 1583-5588

*Dentistry*,Vol.70,No.3,pp. 241–244, ISSN 0022-4006

*Journal*, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.9-16,ISSN 0020-6539

*Care*, Vol. 32, No.9, pp.930-942, ISSN 0025-7079

*Epidemiology*, Vol. 33, No.4,pp.280–288, ISSN 0301-5661

*of Dental Education*, Vol.60, No.6, pp. 494–500, ISSN 0022-0337

Vol. 43, No.1, pp.2-8, ISSN 0020-6539

Vol.5,No.1,pp.3-18,ISSN 0265-539X .

5661

4006

0022-4006

0347-9994

0096-2732

countries Part 6: Turkey. *Journal of Oral Health and Dental Management,* Vol.9, No.3,

oral health among Korean adults aged 18-95 years. *Journal of Public Health* 

meaning of health and disease in a Chinese culture. *International Dental Journal* ,

oral health in two older adults populations. *Community Dentistry and Oral* 

*Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology*, Vol. 22,No.6, pp.425–430,ISSN 0301-

of oral health? *Journal of Public Health Dentistry*, Vol.69,No.2,pp.78-89,ISSN 0022-

health measure? *Journal of Public Health Dentistry*, Vol.65,No.3,pp.146–152, ISSN

oral health, oral treatment need and the use of oral health care of the adult population in Skåne, Sweden. *Swedish Dental Journal*, Vol.35, No. 2, pp. 89-98, ISSN

requirements. *The Journal of Preventive Dentistry*, Vol. 5, No.5, pp. 29–30, ISSN

D.M.(2011). Resilience and self-perceived oral health: a hierarchical approach. *Journal of the American Geriatrics Society*, Vol.59,No.4,pp.725-731,ISSN 002-8614.

and fee-for-service dental benefit plans. *The Journal of the American Dental Association*, Vol .135, No.11, pp. 1606-1615, ISSN 0002-8177


Dahl, K.E.; Wang, N.J.; Skau, I.& Ohrn, K.(2011). Oral health-related quality of life and

Dolan, T.A.; Peek, C.W.; Stuckm, A.E. & Beck, J.C. (1998). Three – year changes in global

Ekbäck, G.; Astrøm, A.N.; Klock, K.; Ordell, S. & Unell, L. (2009). Variation in subjective oral

Finlayson, T.L.; Williams, D.R.; Siefert, K.; Jackson, J.S.& Nowjack-Raymer, R.(2010). Oral

Geckili, O.; Bilhan, H. & Bilgin, T. (2011). Impact of mandibular two-implant retained

Gilbert, G. H., Shelton, B. J., Scott Chavers, L., & Bradford, E. H. (2003). The paradox of

Gilbert, G.H.(2005). Racial and socioeconomic disparities in health from population-based

Gilbert, G.H.; Duncan, R.P.; Heft, M.W.; Dolan, T.A.& Vogel, W.B. (1998).

Gökalp, S.; Doğan, B.G.; Tekçiçek, M.; Berberoğlu, A. & Ünlüer, Ş. (2010). National survey

Grotz, M.; Hapke, U.; Lampert, T. & Baumeister, H. (2011). Health locus of control and

Holt, C.L.; Clark, E.M.; Kreuter, M.W. & Scharff, D.P. (2000). Does locus of control moderate

Jones, J.A.; Kressin, N.R.; Spiro A, 3rd.; Randall, C.W.; Miller, D.R.; Hayes, C.; Kazis, L. &

Kaplan, G. & Baron-Epel, O. (2003). What lies behind the subjective evaluation of health status? *Social Science & Medicine*, Vol .56, No.8, pp. 1669-1676, ISSN 0277-9536

*Association*, Vol .135, No.11, pp. 1606-1615, ISSN 0002-8177

*Epidemiology*, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 62–69, ISSN 0301-5661

*Scandinavica*, Vol. 67, No. 4., pp. 222-232, ISSN 0001-6357

No.4,pp.208-214, ISSN 0001-6357

No.1,pp. 246–255, ISSN 0090-0036

No.1, pp. 119-134, ISSN 0025-7079

pp.988-1001, ISSN 0025-7079

Vol.27, No.1, pp. 12–17, ISSN 0256-539X

No.4, pp. 393–403, ISSN 0268-1153

No.1,pp. M55-M62. ISSN:1079-5006

*Education*, Vol.69,No.9,pp.1003-1014,ISSN 0022-0337

*& Medicine*, Vol.16, No. 2, pp.129-140, ISSN 1354-8506

ISSN 0022-0345

and fee-for-service dental benefit plans. *The Journal of the American Dental* 

associated factors in Norwegian adults. *Acta Odontologica Scandinavica*, Vol.69,

oral health rating by elderly dentate adults. *Community Dentistry and Oral* 

health indicators of 65-year-olds in Norway and Sweden. *Acta Odontologica* 

Health Disparities and Psychosocial Correlates of Self-Rated Oral Health in the National Survey of American Life. *American Journal of Public Health*, Vol.100,

overdentures on life quality in a group of elderly Turkish edentulous patients. *Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics*, Vol.53, No.2,pp.233-236, ISSN 0167-4943 Gift, H.C.; Atchison, K.A. & Drury, T.F. (1998). Perceptions of the natural dentition in the

context of multiple variables. *Journal of Dental Research*, Vol.77, No. 7, pp.1529-1538,

dental need in a population-based study of dental adults. *Medical Care*,Vol. 41,

research to practice-based research: the example of oral health. *Journal of Dental* 

Multidimensionality of Oral Health in Dentate Adults. *Medical Care*, Vol.36., No.7,

of oral health status of children and adults in Turkey. *Community Dental Health*,

health behaviour: results from a nationally representative survey. *Psychology, Health* 

the effects of tailored health education materials? *Health Education Research*, Vol. 15,

Garcia, R.I. (2001). Self-reported and clinical oral health in users of VA health care. The journals of gerontology. Series A, *Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences*,Vol. 56,


The Determinants of Self–Rated Oral Health in Istanbul Adults 187

Pattussi, M.P.; Peres, K.G.; Boing, A.F.; Peres, M.A.& da Costa, J.S.(2010). Self-rated oral

Pavi, E.; Karampli, E.; Zavras, D.; Dardavesis, T. & Kyriopoulos, J. (2010). Social

*Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology*, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.145-150, ISSN 0301-5661 Peek, C.W.; Gilbert, G.H.; Duncan, R.P.; Heft, M.W. & Henretta, J.C. (1999). Patterns of

Peker, K. & Bermek, G.(2011). Oral health: locus of control, health behavior, self-rated oral

Petersen, P.E. & Yamamoto, T. (2005). Improving the oral health of older people: the

Petersen, P.E.; Aleksejuniene, J.; Christensen, L.B.; Eriksen, H.M. & Kalo, I. (2000). Oral

Pinelli, C. & de Castro Monteiro Loffredo,L. (2007). Reproducibility and validity of self-

Pitiphat, W.; Garcia, R.; Douglass, C. & Joshipura, K. (2002). Validation of self-reported oral

Poortinga, W.; Dunstan, F.D. & Fone, D.L. (2008). Health locus of control beliefs and socio-

Reisine, S.T. & Bailit, H.L. (1980). Clinical oral health status and adult perceptions of oral health. *Social Science and Medicine*, Vol.14A, No.6, pp. 597-605, ISSN 0160-7979 Sanders, A.E. & Slade, G.D. (2006). Deficits in perceptions of oral health relative to general

Sanders, A.E.& Spencer, A.J.(2005). Why do poor adults rate their oral health poorly?

Sanders, A.E.; Slade, G.D.; Turrell, G.; John Spencer, A. & Marcenes, W. (2006). The shape of

Seremidi, K.; Koletsi-Kounari, H. & Kandilorou, H.(2009). Self-reported and clinically-

*Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry*, Vol.7, No. 2, pp. 183-190, ISSN 1602-1622 Steptoe, A. & Wardle, J. (2001). Locus of control and health behaviour revisited: a

*Australian Dental Journal*, Vol.50,No.3,pp.161-167, ISSN 0045-0421

*Psychology*, Vol. 92, No.4 , pp. 659-672, ISSN 0007-1269

*Epidemiology*,Vol.38,No.4,pp.348-359, ISSN 0301-5661

*Scandinavica*, Vol.69, No.1,pp.54-64, ISSN 0001-6357

Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 243-248, ISSN 0001-6357

437,ISSN 1432-6981

374-380, ISSN 0091-7435

0022-4006

ISSN 0022-4006

5661

*Oral Epidemiology*; Vol.33, No.2, pp.81-92, ISSN 0301-5661

No.12, pp.1237–1248, ISSN 0025-7079

health and associated factors in Brazilian elders. *Community Dentistry and Oral* 

determinants of dental health services utilisation of Greek adults. *Community* 

change in self-reported oral health among dentate adults. *Medical Care*, Vol. 37,

health and socio-demographic factors in Istanbul adults. *Acta Odontologica* 

approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. *Community Dentistry and* 

health behavior and attitudes of adults in Lithuania. *Acta Odontologica Scandinavica*,

perceived oral health conditions. *Clinical Oral Investigations*, Vol.11,No.4,pp.431-

health measures. *Journal of Public Health Dentistry*, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 122–128, ISSN

economic differences in self-rated health. *Preventive Medicine*, Vol.46, No. 4, pp.

health in populations. *Journal of Public Health Dentistry*, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 255-62,

the socioeconomic-oral health gradient: implications for theoretical explanations. *Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology*, Vol.34, No. 4, pp. 310-319, ISSN 0301-

diagnosed dental needs: determining the factors that affect subjective assessment.

multivariate analysis of young adults from 18 countries*. British Journal of* 


Martins, A.M.; Barreto, S.M. & Pordeus, I.A. (2009) Objective and subjective factors related

Martins, A.M; Barreto, S.M.; Silveira, M.F.; Santa-Rosa, T.T.& Pereira, R,D. (2010). Self-

Matos, D.L.& Lima-Costa, M.F. (2006).Self-rated oral health among Brazilian adults and

Matthias, R.E.; Atchison, K.A; Lubben, J.E.; De Jong, F. & Schweitzer, S.O. (1995). Factors

Maupomé, G.; Peters, D. & White, B.A. (2004). Use of clinical services compared with

Nakazono, T.T.; Davidson, P.L. & Andersen, R.M. (1997). Oral health beliefs in diverse

Namal, N.; Can, G.; Vehid, S.; Koksal, S.& Kaypmaz, A. (2008). Dental health status and risk

Norman, P.; Bennet, P.; Smith, C. & Murphy, S. (1998). Health Locus of Control and Health Behaviour. *Journal of Health Psychology*, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.171- 180, ISSN 1359-1053 Nummela, O.P.; Sulander, T.T., Heinonen, H.S. & Uutela, A.K. (2007). Self-rated health and

Ojofeitimi, E.O.; Adedigba, M.A.; Ogunbodede, E.O.; Fajemilehin, B.R. & Adegbehingbe,

Okunseri, C.; Hodges, J.S. & Born, D.O. (2008a). Self-reported oral health perceptions of

Okunseri, C.; Yang, M.; Gonzalez, C.; LeMay, W.& Iacopino, A.M. (2008b). Hmong adults

Ostberg, A.L.& Hall-Lord, M.L.(2011). Oral health-related quality of life in older Swedish

Ozdemir, H.; Alper, Z.; Uncu, Y. &, Bilgel, N. (2010). Health literacy among adults: a study from Turkey. *Health Education Research*, Vol.25, No.3, pp.464-477, ISSN 0268-1153 Oztürk, L.K.; Furuncuoğlu, H.; Atala, M.H.; Uluköylü, O.; Akyüz, S.& Yarat A. (2008).

Available from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/10/3

*Journal of Public Health,* Vol.35, No.1, pp. 39-47, ISSN 1403-4948

*Gerodontology*, Vol. 24, No.4, pp.231-234, ISSN 0734-0664

*Hygiene*,Vol.6,No.2,pp.114-118,ISSN 1601-5029

Vol.10,No.1,pp.81-88,ISSN 1557-1912

No.3,pp.510-516, ISSN 0283-9318.

pp. 421-435, ISSN 0102-311X

pp. 197-204, ISSN 0022-4006

*Pública*,Vol.44,No.5,pp.912-922,ISSN 0034-8910

*Saúde Pública*,Vol.22,No.8,pp.1699-1707,ISSN 0102-311X

*Health Dentistry*,Vol. 64, No.2, pp.88–95, ISSN 0022-4006

*Journal*, Vol.14, No.1,pp.110-118, ISSN1020-3397

to self-rated oral health among the elderly. *Cadernos de Saúde Pública*, Vol.25, No.2,

perceived oral health among Brazilian elderly individuals. *Revista de Saúde* 

older adults in Southeast Brazil: results from the SB-Brasil Project, 2003. *Cadernos de* 

affecting self-ratings of oral health. *Journal of Public Health Dentistry,* Vol. 55, No.4,

patients' perceptions of and satisfaction with oral health status. *Journal of Public* 

populations. *Advances in Dental Research*, Vol.11, No. 2, pp. 235-244, ISSN 0895-9374

factors for dental caries in adults in Istanbul, Turkey. *Eastern Mediterranean Health* 

indicators of SES among the ageing in three types of communities. *Scandinavian* 

B.O. (2007). Oral health and the elderly in Nigeria: a case for oral health promotion.

Somali adults in Minnesota: a pilot study. *International Journal of Dental* 

self-rated oral health: a pilot study. *Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health* ,

people with pain problems. *Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences*, Vol.25,

Association between dental-oral health in young adults and salivary glutathione, lipid peroxidation and sialic acid levels and carbonic anhydrase activity. *Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research,* Vol. 41, No.11,pp.956-959, ISSN 0100-879X Parker, E.J. & Jamieson, L.M. (2010). Associations between indigenous Australian oral health

literacy and self-reported oral health outcomes. *BioMed Central Oral Health*, Vol. 10,


**10** 

*Sweden* 

Kristian Hellgren

*Specialistkliniken, Helsingborg* 

**Krill Enzymes (Krillase®)** 

**an Important Factor to Improve Oral Hygiene** 

Prevention of gingivitis is largely governed by limiting the development of oral dental plaque and biofilm formation. It is also broadly acknowledged that accumulation of microorganisms are of pivotal importance in the initiation and progression of gingivitis and associated oral diseases (Socransky, Haffajee, 2005). We propose that krill enzymes (Krillase®) as they disintegrate cell surface structures and diminish bacterial adhesion to be

Krillase® is isolated from the digestive tract of Antarctic krill (*Euphausia superba*), a shrimp like animal constituting an enormous biomass in the Antarctic convergence. The harsch ecological situation in the Antarctica implies that krill has an exceptionally effective digestive apparatus containing a co-operative multi-enzyme system involving both endoand exopeptidases. Moreover, these enzymes have much lower activation energies than those of mammalian enzymes ensuring fast and highly efficient breakdown of diverse

The objective for the development of Krillase® has been to maintain the natural composition of krill enzymes intact throughout the purification process. Krillase® is defined as a mixture of acidic endopeptidases (trypsin- and chymotrypsin-like enzymes) and exopeptidases

The final product (chewing gum) is well characterized with respect to stability, enzyme activity, uniformity and biocompability. Data from toxicology, pharmacology, pre- resp

Krill enzymes, due to their unique synergistic action, have been proven to exert both quantitative and qualitative effects on dental plaque/biofilm as well as on bacterial adherence to teeth surfaces. This leads to significant decrease in plaque accumulation and

In summary, Krillase® constitutes an important future alternative to a variety of other more toxic chemicals presently marketed for oral use including bisguanid, triclosan,

In our recent study the effect of Krillase® chewing gum on gingival inflammation and dental plaque formation was investigated (Hellgren, 2009). Ten healthy volunteers aged 21-

reduction in occurrence of gingivitis and caries pathogenesis (Hellgren, 2009).

a novel and innovative method for prevention of gingivitis.

clinical studies give evidence for a broad safety profile.

biological substrates (Hellgren et al, 1999).

(carboxypeptidase A and B).

aminoalcohols.

**2. Clinical studies** 

**1. Introduction** 

