ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[Self-perceived oral health and associated factors among adults in Germany. Results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-perceived oral health of people with and without diabetes mellitus: results of the study GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Oral health behaviors and associated factors in older adults: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Oral Health Knowledge, Self-Assessed Oral Health Behavior, and Oral Hygiene Practices among the Adult General Population in Croatia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- [Utilization of dental care by adults with and without impairments and disabilities-results of the GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS study].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and aim of the workInformation on the oral health of the population is important for the assessment of (preventable) disease burden, for the estimation and planning of health resources and costs, and for the evaluation of health inequalities. The aim of this work is to investigate for the first time self-perceived oral health, including associated factors, based on data from a nationally representative sample for the adult population in Germany. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe data basis is the nationwide German Health Update study (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, n = 22,708 aged 18 years and older). In the telephone interview, the participants were asked how they would describe the state of their teeth and gums - "very good," "good," "fair," "bad," or "very bad." Sociodemographic, behavioral, and dental characteristics are examined as associated factors. Prevalences and results of multivariate binary logistic regressions (odds ratios, OR) are reported. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the participants, 71.4% perceived their oral health as very good or good, 28.6% as fair to very bad. Difficulty in chewing and biting on hard foods (OR 4.0), unmet dental care needs (OR 2.3), male gender (OR 1.5), and not consuming fruits and vegetables daily (OR 1.2) were the most important associated factors for fair to very bad self-perceived oral health; for men, low education (OR 2,1), daily smoking (OR 1.6) and not receiving dental care annually (OR 1.4) were also important. From the results, starting points for promoting oral health can be derived.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.