Valid estimates of caries experience are needed to monitor oral population health. Obtaining such estimates in practice is often complicated by nonresponse and missing data. The goal of this study was to estimate caries experiences in a population of children aged 5 and 11 years, in the presence of nonresponse and missing data. Four estimation methods are compared. Each method makes implicit assumptions about the processes that caused the nonresponse and the missing data. Three of the four methods are based on unrealistic assumptions about the missing data and underestimate caries experience. Under the missing at random assumption, multiple imputation in combination with direct standardization corrects for the deficiencies of current methodology. In the presence of missing data and nonresponse, we recommend a combination of multiple imputation and direct standardization to obtain correct estimates of caries experience.

Keywords:
Bias, Biostatistics, Dental public health, DMF index, Epidemiology, Oral health
1.
Armfield JM: What goes around comes around: revisiting the hypothesized vicious cycle of dental fear and avoidance. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41:279-287.
2.
Armfield JM, Slade GD, Spencer AJ: Are people with dental fear under-represented in oral epidemiological surveys? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009;44:495-500.
3.
Armfield JM, Stewart JF, Spencer AJ: The vicious cycle of dental fear: exploring the interplay between oral health, service utilization and dental fear. BMC Oral Health 2007;7:1.
4.
Cochran WG: Sampling Techniques. New York, Wiley, 1977.
5.
Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, Willem JM, Betz J, Lepkowski J: Risk indicators for dental caries using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2008;36:55-68.
6.
Klein H, Palmer CE, Knutson JW: Studies on dental caries. I. Dental status and dental needs of elementary school children. Public Health Rep 1938;53:751-765.
7.
Liao CC, Ganz ML, Jiang H, Chelmow T: The impact of the public insurance expansions on children's use of preventive dental care. Matern Child Health J 2010;14:58-66.
8.
Little RJ, Rubin DB: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York, Wiley, 2002.
9.
Locker D: Response and nonresponse bias in oral health surveys. J Public Health Dent 2000;60:72-81.
10.
Mejia GC, Weintraub JA, Cheng NF, Grossman W, Han PZ, Phipps KR, Gansky SA: Language and literacy relate to lack of children's dental sealant use. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39:318-324.
11.
Newton KM, Chaudhari M, Barlow WE, Inge RE, Theis MK, Spangler LA, Hujoel PP, Reid RJ: A population-based study of periodontal care among those with and without diabetes. J Periodontol 2011;82:1650-1656.
12.
Pahel BT, Preisser JS, Stearns SC, Rozier RG: Multiple imputation of dental caries data using a zero-inflated Poisson regression model. J Public Health Dent 2011;71:71-78.
13.
Plutzer K, Mejia GC, Spencer AJ, Keirse MJ: Dealing with missing outcomes: lessons from a randomized trial of a prenatal intervention to prevent early childhood caries. Open Dent J 2010;4:55-60.
14.
Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, Wiley, 1987.
15.
Schuller AA, Kempen van CPF, Poorterman JHG, Verrips GHW: Kies Voor Tanden: Een Onderzoek Naar Mondgezondheid En Preventief Tandheelkundig Gedrag Van Jeugdigen. Leiden, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, 2013.
16.
Tellez M, Sohn W, Burt BA, Ismail AI: Assessment of the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and dental caries severity among low-income African-Americans: a multilevel approach. J Public Health Dent 2006;66:30-36.
17.
van Buuren S: Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2012.
18.
van Buuren S, Brand JPL, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Rubin DB: Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation. J Stat Comput Simul 2006;76:1049-1064.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.