Oral health in KFL&A
Data sources and citation: Canadian Community Health Survey 2003, 2007 and 2008, 2013 and 2014, Statistics Canada, Share File, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Sample: Residents 12 years and over in the KFL&A area.
Released: Sept. 2016
All figures are for ages 12 years and over.
General health of teeth |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 1. General health of people's teeth and mouth, KFL&A
Table 1. General health of people's teeth and mouth, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)
Interpretation for Figure 1In 2013 and 2014, 21.3% (17.8, 25.3) of KFL&A area residents considered the general health of their teeth and mouth 'excellent'. Another 35.1% (30.4, 40.2) considered their teeth and mouth in 'very good' health. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario and no trends over time were seen (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 2. General health of people's teeth and mouth, Ontario
Table 2. General health of people's teeth and mouth, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The percentage of the population that is not able to chew certain foods |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 3. The percentage of the population that is not able to chew the following foods, Ontario
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size Table 3. The percentage of the population that is not able to chew the following foods, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 3In 2013 and 2014, 5.8% (5.4, 6.2) of Ontario residents could not bite off and chew a piece of fresh apple. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report.
Figure 4. The percentage of the population that is not able to bite off and chew a fresh piece of apple, by age group, Ontario
Table 4. The percentage of the population that is not able to bite off and chew a fresh piece of apple, by age group, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
Interpretation for Figure 4In 2013 and 2014, 15.0% (13.8, 16.3) of Ontario residents, ages 65 and over, could not bite off and chew a piece of fresh apple. Inability to bite off and chew a piece of fresh apple increased with increasing age. No trends over time were seen. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency of pain or discomfort in teeth or gums |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 5. Frequency of pain or discomfort in teeth or gums, KFL&A
Table 5. Frequency of pain or discomfort in teeth or gums, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)
Interpretation for Figure 5In 2013 and 2014, 15.8% (12.4, 20.0) of KFL&A area residents had pain or discomfort in their teeth or gums in the previous month. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario and no trends over time were seen (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 6. Frequency of pain or discomfort in teeth or gums, Ontario
Table 6. Frequency of pain or discomfort in teeth or gums, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
Interpretation for Figure 6In 2013 and 2014, 18.9% (18.2, 19.7) of Ontario residents had pain or discomfort 'often' or 'sometimes' in their teeth or gums in the previous month. Although the percentage in Ontario 'often' or 'sometimes' experiencing pain or discomfort in their teeth or gums was higher in 2013 and 2014 than it was in 2007 and 2008, it was not higher than the percentage in 2003, thus is it unclear if this is a true increasing trend. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency that the population usually visits the dentist |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 7. Frequency that the population usually visits the dentist, KFL&A
|
|
Frequency category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a year |
34.2% (30.2, 38.5) |
39.1% (35.3, 43.2) |
42.3% (37.6, 47.2) |
39.1% (34.6, 43.7) |
|
About once a year |
37.3% (33.2, 41.7) |
34.2% (30.7, 38) |
31.9% (26.7, 37.6) |
35.5% (31.2, 40.0) |
|
Less than once a year |
6.6% (4.9, 9.0) |
6.8% (4.9, 9.3) |
7.5%* (5.3, 10.4) |
6.5%* (4.3, 9.8) |
|
Only for emergency care |
21.8% (18.7, 25.4) |
19.8% (16.7, 23.4) |
18.3% (14.5, 22.7) |
18.9% (15.4, 23.0) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 7
In 2013 and 2014, 18.9% (15.4, 23.0) of KFL&A area residents usually only visited the dentist for emergency care. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario and no trends over time were seen (Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 8. Frequency that the population usually visits the dentist, Ontario
Table 8. Frequency that the population usually visits the dentist, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Frequency category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a year |
43.6% (42.7, 44.5) |
43.7% (43.0, 44.5) |
44.6% (43.7, 45.5) |
43.8% (42.9, 44.7) |
|
About once a year |
31.4% (30.6, 32.3) |
30.5% (29.8, 31.3) |
30.2% (29.3, 31) |
30.7% (29.8, 31.6) |
|
Less than once a year |
6.5% (6.1, 7) |
6.0% (5.7, 6.4) |
6.1% (5.7, 6.6) |
6.2% (5.7, 6.7) |
|
Only for emergency care |
18.5% (17.8, 19.2) |
19.7% (18.9, 20.5) |
19.1% (18.4, 19.9) |
19.3% (18.6, 20.1) |
Interpretation for Figure 8
In 2013 and 2014, 19.3% (18.6, 20.1) of Ontario residents usually only visited the dentist for emergency care. No trends over time were seen.
Residents that went to the dentist less than once a year or for emergency care only, by age and sex
Figure 9. Residents that went to the dentist less than once a year or for emergency care only, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Table 9. Residents that went to the dentist less than once a year or for emergency care only, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
KFL&A |
Ontario |
|
Total |
25.4% (21.4, 30.0) |
25.5% (24.6, 26.4) |
|
Males |
30.7% (23.9, 38.5) |
28.1% (26.8, 29.4) |
|
Females |
20.6% (16.4, 25.5) |
23.1% (22.0, 24.2) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
21.4%* (14.8, 30.0) |
24.5% (23.1, 26.0) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
26.6% (20.0, 34.4) |
23.1% (21.8, 24.4) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
29.5% (23.8, 35.9) |
35.2% (33.5, 36.9) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 9
In 2013 and 2014, in Ontario, male residents and those aged 65 and over were more likely to visit the dentist less than once a year or for emergency care only. KFL&A shows the same trends, but the differences are not statistically significant, possibly due to small sample size.
Frequency that the population with no dental insurance usually visits the dentist
Figure 10. Frequency that the population with no dental insurance usually visits the dentist, KFL&A
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Table 10. Frequency that the population with no dental insurance usually visits the dentist, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Frequency category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a year |
28.1% (22.1, 35.0) |
25.3% (19.7, 32.0) |
24.6% (19.1, 31.1) |
22.8%* (16.0, 31.4) |
|
About once a year |
26.9% (21.4, 33.2) |
28.1% (21.9, 35.4) |
29.2% (21.8, 37.9) |
34.1% (26.9, 42.1) |
|
Less than once a year |
5.7%* (3.2, 10.0) |
7.7%* (4.8, 12.2) |
9.4%* (5.5, 15.5) |
8.2%* (4.4, 14.7) |
|
Only for emergency care |
39.4% (32.7, 46.5) |
38.8% (31.9, 46.1) |
36.8% (29.6, 44.6) |
35.0% (27.0, 43.8) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 10
In 2013 and 2014, 32.9% (28.0, 38.2) of KFL&A area residents did not have any dental insurance (data not shown). In 2013 and 2014, 35.0% (27.0, 43.8) of KFL&A area residents with no dental insurance usually only visited the dentist for emergency care. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario (Figures 9 and 10) and no trends over time were seen.
Of the 61.7% (61.8, 72.0) of KFL&A residents that did have dental insurance, 83.7% (79.8, 87.0) had an employer sponsored plan, 14.1% (10.9, 18.1) had a government sponsored plan, and 3.8%* (2.5, 5.8) had a private plan (data not shown)
Figure 11. Frequency that the population with no dental insurance usually visits the dentist, Ontario
Table 11. Frequency that the population with no dental insurance usually visits the dentist, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Frequency category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a year |
27.7% (26.3, 29.2) |
25.6% (24.4, 26.9) |
24.7% (23.4, 26) |
24.3% (22.9, 25.7) |
|
About once a year |
28.8% (27.4, 30.2) |
27.9% (26.6, 29.2) |
28.5% (27.1, 29.9) |
28.5% (27.0, 30.0) |
|
Less than once a year |
8.1% (7.2, 9.1) |
7.6% (7.0, 8.3) |
8.9% (8.0, 9.9) |
9.2% (8.1, 10.3) |
|
Only for emergency care |
35.4% (33.9, 37) |
38.9% (37.4, 40.4) |
37.9% (36.4, 39.5) |
38.1% (36.4, 39.8) |
Interpretation for Figure 11
In 2013 and 2014, 33.3% (32.4, 34.2) of Ontario residents did not have any dental insurance (data not shown). In 2013 and 2014, 38.1% (36.4, 39.8) of Ontario residents with no dental insurance usually only visited the dentist for emergency care.
Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay
Figure 12. Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, KFL&A and Ontario
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Table 12. Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, by age and sex, Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Year |
KFL&A |
Ontario |
|
2003 |
4.9%* (3.2, 7.5) |
5.1% (4.7, 5.5) |
|
2005 |
6.3%* (4.3, 9.0) |
5.0% (4.6, 5.4) |
|
2009 and 2010 |
6.5%* (4.2, 10.0) |
4.7% (4.3, 5.1) |
|
2013 and 2014 |
3.9%* (2.4, 6.1) |
5.2% (4.8, 5.7) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 12
In 2013 and 2014, 3.9%* (2.4, 6.1) of KFL&A residents and 5.2% (4.8, 5.7) of Ontario residents have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay.
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, by age and sex
Figure 13. Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, by age and sex, Ontario, 2013 and 2014
Table 13. Residents that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, by age and sex, Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
Total |
5.1% (4.7, 5.5) |
5.0% (4.6, 5.4) |
4.7% (4.3, 5.1) |
5.2% (4.8, 5.7) |
|
Males |
5.7% (5.1, 6.4) |
5.7% (5.1, 6.4) |
5.1% (4.5, 5.7) |
5.9% (5.2, 6.6) |
|
Females |
4.5% (4.0, 5.1) |
4.3% (3.8, 4.8) |
4.2% (3.7, 4.8) |
4.7% (4.1, 5.3) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
2.1% (1.7, 2.6) |
2.0% (1.7, 2.4) |
2.3% (1.9, 2.8) |
2.4% (2.0, 3.1) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
6.3% (5.6, 7.0) |
6.2% (5.6, 6.9) |
5.2% (4.7, 5.9) |
6.1% (5.4, 6.9) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
9.6% (8.2, 11.2) |
9.0% (7.0, 10.5) |
8.8% (7.8, 10.0) |
8.7% (7.6, 9.8) |
Interpretation for Figure 13
In 2013 and 2014, 5.2% (4.8, 5.7) of Ontario residents have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay. In 2013 and 2014, there were slightly more males than females that had had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay, however, the difference was not statistically significant. As age increases, so does the proportion of the population that have had teeth removed because of gum disease or decay. No trends over time were seen. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report.
Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth
Figure 14. Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, KFL&A and Ontario
Table 14. Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, KFL&A and Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Year |
KFL&A |
Ontario |
|
2003 |
2.6%* (1.5, 4.6) |
2.3% (2.0, 2.6) |
|
2005 |
1.9%* (1.2, 2.9) |
2.3% (2.1, 2.6) |
|
2009 and 2010 |
3.9%* (2.2, 6.9) |
2.6% (2.3, 2.9) |
|
2013 and 2014 |
2.4%* (1.4, 4.2) |
2.3% (2.1, 2.6) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 14
In 2013 and 2014, 2.4%* (1.4, 4.2) of KFL&A residents had difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario and no trends over time were seen.
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex
Figure 15. Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario
Table 15. Residents that have difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
Total |
2.3% (2.0, 2.6) |
2.3% (2.1, 2.6) |
2.6% (2.3, 2.9) |
2.3% (2.1, 2.6) |
|
Males |
2.4% (2.0, 2.8) |
2.4% (2.1, 2.7) |
2.8% (2.5, 3.2) |
2.6% (2.2, 3.0) |
|
Females |
2.2% (1.9, 2.6) |
2.3% (2.0, 2.6) |
2.3% (2.0, 2.7) |
2.1% (1.8, 2.5) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
1.9% (1.5, 2.5) |
1.8% (1.5, 2.1) |
2.1% (1.8, 2.4) |
2.5% (2.0, 3.0) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
2.4% (2.0, 2.7) |
2.6% (2.3, 3.0) |
2.7% (2.2, 3.2) |
2.0% (1.7, 2.3) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
3.0% (2.4, 3.6) |
2.9% (2.4, 3.4) |
3.4% (2.9, 4.0) |
3.1% (2.6, 3.7) |
Interpretation for Figure 15
In 2013 and 2014, 2.3% (2.1, 2.6) of Ontario residents had difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth. No trends over time were seen. As age increases, so does the proportion of the population that had difficulty speaking clearly due to the condition of their teeth or mouth. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report.
Figure 16. Residents that have avoided conversation with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario
Table 16. Residents that have avoided conversation with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
Total |
2.3% (2.0, 2.6) |
1.8% (1.6, 2.0) |
2.2% (1.9, 2.4) |
2.1% (1.8, 2.4) |
|
Males |
2.2% (1.9, 2.7) |
1.7% (1.4, 2.0) |
1.8% (1.5, 2.1) |
1.8% (1.5, 2.2) |
|
Females |
2.4% (2.0, 2.9) |
2.0% (1.7, 2.3) |
2.5% (2.2, 3.0) |
2.4% (2.0, 2.8) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
2.0% (1.6, 2.5) |
1.6% (1.4, 1.9) |
1.7% (1.4, 2.2) |
1.9% (1.5, 2.5) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
2.6% (2.2, 3.1) |
2.0% (1.7, 2.4) |
2.6% (2.2, 3.0) |
2.4% (2.0, 2.8) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
2.1% (1.6, 2.7) |
1.5% (1.1, 1.9) |
1.7% (1.4, 2.1) |
1.6% (1.3, 2.0) |
Interpretation for Figure 16
In 2013 and 2014, 2.1% (1.8, 2.4) of Ontario residents have avoided conversation with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth. No trends over time were seen. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report.
Residents that have avoided laughing or smiling with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex
Figure 17. Residents that have avoided laughing or smiling with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario
Table 17. Residents that have avoided laughing or smiling with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, by age and sex, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
Total |
3.1% (2.8, 3.4) |
3.0% (2.7, 3.2) |
2.9% (2.6, 3.2) |
3.9% (3.5, 4.2) |
|
Males |
3.3% (2.9, 3.8) |
2.6% (2.3, 2.9) |
2.5% (2.2, 2.9) |
3.6% (3.2, 4.2) |
|
Females |
2.9% (2.5, 3.3) |
3.3% (3.0, 3.7) |
3.3% (2.9, 3.7) |
4.1% (3.6, 4.6) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
3.2% (2.8, 3.7) |
3.4% (3, 3.9) |
2.6% (2.2, 3.1) |
4.0% (3.5, 4.7) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
3.3% (2.8, 3.8) |
3.0% (2.6, 3.3) |
3.4% (3.0, 3.8) |
4.1% (3.7, 4.7) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
2.1% (1.6, 2.7) |
1.7% (1.4, 2.0) |
2.1% (1.7, 2.6) |
2.6% (2.1, 3.2) |
Interpretation for Figure 17
In 2013 and 2014, 3.9% (3.5, 4.2) of Ontario residents have avoided laughing or smiling with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth, which was slightly higher than previous years. Those aged 65 years and over were less likely than other age groups to have avoided laughing or smiling with other people due to the condition of their teeth or mouth. The estimates for KFL&A were too unstable to report.
Frequency that residents brush their teeth
Figure 18. Frequency that residents brush their teeth, KFL&A
Table 18. Frequency that residents brush their teeth, KFL&A, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Frequency |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a day |
28.3% (24.7, 32.3) |
28.3% (24.6, 32.4) |
22.9% (19.2, 27.1) |
18.6% (15.1, 22.8) |
|
Twice a day |
53.8% (49.5, 58.1) |
57.8% (53.2, 62.2) |
62.0% (57.2, 66.7) |
59.7% (54.6, 64.6) |
|
Once a day |
15.4% (12.8, 18.5) |
13.4% (10.8, 16.6) |
13.9% (11.3, 17.0) |
20.2% (16.7, 24.1) |
Interpretation for Figure 18
In 2013 and 2014, KFL&A residents reported most frequently brushing their teeth twice a day, 59.7% (54.6, 64.6). The proportion of residents brushing their teeth less than once a day was not reportable due to small sample size. In 2013 and 2014, there was a slight decrease in the proportion of KFL&A residents who brushed their teeth more than once a day, and a subsequent increase in the proportion who only brushed once a day. There were no differences between KFL&A and Ontario.
Figure 19. Frequency that residents brush their teeth, Ontario
Table 19. Frequency that residents brush their teeth, Ontario, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Frequency |
2003 |
2005 |
2009 and 2010 |
2013 and 2014 |
|
More than once a day |
24.2% (23.5, 25.0) |
23.0% (22.3, 23.8) |
21.0% (20.2, 21.8) |
17.3% (16.6, 18.1) |
|
Twice a day |
59.5% (58.7, 60.4) |
59.7% (59.0, 60.5) |
62.3% (61.4, 63.1) |
64.2% (63.4, 65.1) |
|
Once a day |
15.0% (14.4, 15.7) |
15.9% (15.3, 16.6) |
15.4% (14.8, 16.1) |
16.9% (16.2, 17.5) |
Interpretation for Figure 19
In 2013 and 2014, Ontario residents reported most frequently brushing their teeth twice a day, 64.2% (63.4, 65.1). The proportion of residents brushing their teeth less than once a day was 2% and given the low proportion, was not reported in Figure 19. Over time, there was a decrease in the proportion of residents brushing their teeth more than once a day.
Residents brush their teeth once a day, by age and sex
Figure 20. Residents brush their teeth once a day, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Table 20. Residents brush their teeth once a day, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
KFL&A |
Ontario |
|
Total |
20.2% (16.7, 24.1) |
16.9% (16.2, 17.5) |
|
Males |
28.7% (22.2, 36.2) |
23.3% (22.2, 24.4) |
|
Females |
12.3% (9.1, 16.4) |
10.7% (10.0, 11.4) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
20.3%* (13.3, 29.7) |
16.5% (15.3, 17.7) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
19.6% (14.0, 26.8) |
16.3% (15.3, 17.3) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
21.4% (15.3, 29.2) |
19.9% (18.6, 21.3) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 20
In both KFL&A and Ontario in 2013 and 2014, significantly more males than females brushed their teeth only once a day. In Ontario, significantly more residents ages 65 years and over brushed their teeth only once a day than other age groups.
Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by age and sex
Figure 21. Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Table 21. Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by age and sex, KFL&A and Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
KFL&A |
Ontario |
|
Total |
10.9% (8.3, 14.3) |
11.9% (11.3, 12.5) |
|
Males |
12.9%* (8.5, 19.0) |
10.9% (10.1, 11.7) |
|
Females |
9.1%* (5.9, 13.7) |
12.9% (12.1, 13.8) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
15.7%* (10.1, 23.6) |
15.3% (14.3, 16.3) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
9.1%* (5.5, 14.6) |
11.2% (10.2, 12.2) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
NR |
5.9% (5.3, 6.7) |
*Use with caution due to high variability of estimate as a result of small sample size
Interpretation for Figure 21
In KFL&A in 2013 and 2014, 10.9% (8.3, 14.3) residents had a toothache in the previous month. In Ontario, slightly more females than males had a toothache in the previous month. In Ontario, those aged 12 to 34 had the highest percentage of toothaches, in the previous month, compared to other age groups. As age increase, the proportion of toothaches decreases.
Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by insurance status, age and sex
Figure 22. Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by insurance status, age and sex, Ontario, 2013 and 2014
Table 22. Residents that had a toothache in the previous month, by insurance status, age and sex, Ontario, 2013 and 2014, % (95% confidence interval)
|
Category |
With insurance |
Without insurance |
|
Total |
11.3% (10.6, 12.0) |
13.0% (11.9, 14.3) |
|
Males |
10.1% (9.3, 11.1) |
12.2% (10.7, 14.0) |
|
Females |
12.4% (11.4, 13.5) |
13.7% (12.2, 15.4) |
|
Ages 12 to 34 |
14.8% (13.6, 16.0) |
16.3% (14.2, 18.6) |
|
Ages 35 to 64 |
10.2% (9.2, 11.2) |
14.2% (12.2, 16.5) |
|
Ages 65 and over |
4.5% (3.7, 5.4) |
7.0% (5.9, 8.3) |
Interpretation for Figure 22
In Ontario in 2013 and 2014, more residents aged 35 to 64 and 65 years and over, without insurance, had a toothache in the previous month than those with insurance.
Confidence intervals explained
Researchers look at the "confidence levels" of percentages being compared to decide if there is a statistically significant difference between percentages. If the 95% confidence intervals of two estimates do not overlap, there is considered to be a significant difference between the estimates. A statistically significant difference means that:
- the difference between two percentages is unlikely to have occurred by chance alone, and
- there is likely a true difference or change in the percentages.
In this report, 95% confidence intervals will accompany each percentage in all figures and tables. The true or actual percentage falls within the 95% confidence interval range 95 times out of 100. A wide confidence interval reflects a large amount of variability or imprecision. Usually, the larger the sample size, the narrower the confidence intervals. In tables, the 95% confidence intervals will be written with the percentage, followed by the 95% confidence interval range in brackets, e.g., 25.3% (12.3, 32.4). In figures, the 95% confidence interval are represented by error bars at the top of each bar (column).