NEET MDS Lessons
Public Health Dentistry
Common tests in dental biostatics and applications
Dental biostatistics involves the application of statistical methods to the
study of dental medicine and oral health. It is used to analyze data, make
inferences, and support decision-making in various dental fields such as
epidemiology, clinical research, public health, and education. Some common tests
and their applications in dental biostatistics include:
1. T-test: This test is used to compare the means of two
independent groups. For example, it can be used to compare the pain levels
experienced by patients who receive two different types of local anesthetics
during dental procedures.
2. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance): This test is used to compare
the means of more than two independent groups. It is often used in dental
studies to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple treatments or to compare the
success rates of different dental materials.
3. Chi-Square Test: This is a non-parametric test used to
assess the relationship between categorical variables. In dental research, it
might be used to determine if there is an association between tooth decay and
socioeconomic status, or between the type of dental restoration and the
frequency of post-operative complications.
4. McNemar's Test: This is a statistical test used to analyze
paired nominal data, such as the change in the presence or absence of a
condition over time. In dentistry, it can be applied to assess the effectiveness
of a treatment by comparing the presence of dental caries in the same patients
before and after the treatment.
5. Kruskal-Wallis Test: This is another non-parametric test for
comparing more than two independent groups. It's useful when the data is not
normally distributed. For instance, it can be used to compare the effectiveness
of three different types of toothpaste in reducing plaque and gingivitis.
6. Mann-Whitney U Test: This test is used to compare the
medians of two independent groups when the data is not normally distributed. It
is often used in dental studies to compare the effectiveness of different
interventions, such as comparing the effectiveness of two mouthwashes in
reducing plaque and gingivitis.
7. Regression Analysis: This statistical method is used to
analyze the relationship between one dependent variable (e.g., tooth loss) and
one or more independent variables (e.g., age, oral hygiene habits, smoking
status). It helps to identify risk factors and predict outcomes.
8. Logistic Regression: This is used to model the relationship
between a binary outcome (e.g., presence or absence of dental caries) and one or
more independent variables. It is commonly used in dental epidemiology to assess
the risk factors for various oral diseases.
9. Cox Proportional Hazards Model: This is a survival analysis
technique used to estimate the time until an event occurs. In dentistry, it
might be used to determine the factors that influence the time until a dental
implant fails.
10. Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis: This method is used to
estimate the probability of survival over time. It's commonly applied in dental
studies to evaluate the success rates of dental restorations or implants.
11. Fisher's Exact Test: This is used to test the significance
of a relationship between two categorical variables, especially when the sample
size is small. It might be used in a study examining the association between a
specific genetic mutation and the occurrence of oral cancer.
12. Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient: This is a
non-parametric measure of the correlation between two continuous or ordinal
variables. It could be used to assess the relationship between the severity of
periodontal disease and the patient's self-reported oral hygiene habits.
13. Cohen's kappa coefficient: This measures the agreement
between two or more raters who are categorizing items into ordered categories.
It is useful in calibration studies among dental professionals to assess the
consistency of their diagnostic or clinical evaluations.
14. Sample Size Calculation: Determining the appropriate sample
size is crucial for ensuring that dental studies are adequately powered to
detect significant differences. This is done using statistical formulas that
take into account the expected effect size, significance level, and power of the
study.
15. Confidence Intervals (CIs): CIs provide a range within
which the true population parameter is likely to lie, given the sample data.
They are commonly reported in dental studies to indicate the precision of the
results, for instance, the estimated difference in treatment efficacy between
two groups.
16. Statistical Significance vs. Clinical Significance: Dental
biostatistics helps differentiate between results that are statistically
significant (unlikely to have occurred by chance) and clinically significant
(large enough to have practical implications for patient care).
17. Meta-Analysis: This technique combines the results of
multiple studies to obtain a more precise estimate of the effectiveness of a
treatment or intervention. It is frequently used in dental research to summarize
the evidence for various treatments and to guide clinical practice.
These tests and applications are essential for designing, conducting, and
interpreting dental research studies. They help ensure that the results are
valid and reliable, and can be applied to improve the quality of oral health
care.
1. Disease is multifactorial in nature; difficult to identify one particular cause
a. Host factors
(1) Immunity to disease/natural resistance
(2) Heredity
(3) Age, gender, race
(4) Physical or morphologic factors
b. Agent factors
(1) Biologic—microbiologic
(2) Chemical—poisons, dosage levels
(3) Physical—environmental exposure
c. Environment factors
(1) Physical—geography and climate
(2) Biologic—animal hosts and vectors
(3) Social —socioeconomic, education, nutrition
2. All factors must be present to be sufficient cause for disease
3. Interplay of these factors is ongoing: to affect the disease, attack at the weakest link
Some Terms
1. Epidemic—a disease of significantly greater prevalence than normal; more than the expected number of cases; a disease that spreads rapidly through a demographic segment of a population
2. Endemic—continuing problem involving normal disease prevalence; the expected number of cases; indigenous to a population or geographic area
3. Pandemic—occurring throughout the population of a country, people, or the world
4. Mortality—death
5. Morbidity—disease
6. Rate—a numerical ratio in which the number of actual occurrences appears as the numerator and number of possible occurrences appears as the denominator, often used in compilation of data concerning the prevalence and incidence of events; measure of time is an intrinsic part of the denominator.
Plaque index (PlI)
0 = No plaque in the gingival area.
1 = A thin film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent to the area of the tooth. The plaque is not readily visible, but is recognized by running a periodontal probe across the tooth surface.
2 = Moderate accumulation of plaque on the gingival margin, within the gingival pocket, and/or adjacent to the tooth surface, which can be observed visually.
3 = Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or adjacent to the tooth surface.
Gingival index (GI)
0 = Healthy gingiva.
1= Mild inflammation: characterized by a slight change in color, edema. No bleeding observed on gentle probing.
2 = Moderate inflammation: characterized by redness, edema, and glazing. Bleeding on probing observed.
3 = Severe inflammation: characterized by marked redness and edema. Ulceration with a tendency toward spontaneous bleeding.
Modified gingival index (MGI)
0 = Absence of inflammation.
1 = Mild inflammation: characterized by a slight change in texture of any portion of, but not the entire marginal or papillary gingival unit.
2 = Mild inflammation: criteria as above, but involving the entire marginal or papillary gingival unit.
3 = Moderate inflammation: characterized by glazing, redness, edema, and/or hypertrophy of the marginal or papillary gingival unit.
4 = Severe inflammation: marked redness, edema, and/or hypertrophy of the marginal or papillary gingival unit, spontaneous bleeding, or ulceration.
Community periodontal index (CPI)
0 = Healthy gingiva.
1 = Bleeding observed after gentle probing or by visualization.
2 = Calculus felt during probing, but all of the black area of the probe remains visible (3.5-5.5 mm from ball tip).
3 = Pocket 4 or 5 mm (gingival margin situated on black area of probe, approximately 3.5-5.5 mm from the probe tip).
4 = Pocket > 6 mm (black area of probe is not visible).
Periodontal screening and recording (PSR)
0 = Healthy gingiva. Colored area of the probe remains visible, and no evidence of calculus or defective margins is detected.
1 = Colored area of the probe remains visible and no evidence of calculus or defective margins is detected, but bleeding on probing is noted.
2 = Colored area of the probe remains visible and calculus or defective margins is detected.
3 = Colored area of the probe remains partly visible (probe depth between 3.5-5.5 mm).
4 = Colored area of the probe completely disappears (probe depth > 5.5 mm).
The null hypothesis is a fundamental concept in scientific research,
including dentistry, which serves as a starting point for conducting experiments
or studies. It is a statement that assumes there is no relationship, difference,
or effect between the variables being studied. The null hypothesis is often
denoted as H₀.
In dentistry, researchers may formulate a null hypothesis to test the efficacy
of a new treatment, the relationship between oral health and systemic
conditions, or the prevalence of dental diseases. The purpose of the null
hypothesis is to provide a baseline against which the results of the study can
be compared to determine if the observed effects are statistically significant
or not.
Here are some common applications of the null hypothesis in dentistry:
1. Comparing Dental Treatments: Researchers might formulate a
null hypothesis that a new treatment is no more effective than the standard
treatment. For example, "There is no significant difference in the reduction of
dental caries between the use of fluoride toothpaste and a new, alternative
dental gel."
2. Oral Health and Systemic Conditions: A null hypothesis could
be used to test if there is no correlation between oral health and systemic
diseases such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease. For instance, "There is no
significant relationship between periodontal disease and the incidence of
stroke."
3. Dental Materials: Studies might use a null hypothesis to
assess the equivalence of different materials used in dental restorations. For
example, "There is no difference in the longevity of composite resin fillings
compared to amalgam fillings."
4. Dental Procedures: Researchers may compare the effectiveness
of new surgical techniques with traditional ones. The null hypothesis would be
that the new procedure does not result in better patient outcomes. For instance,
"There is no significant difference in post-operative pain between
laser-assisted versus traditional scalpel gum surgery."
5. Epidemiological Studies: In studies examining the prevalence
of dental diseases, the null hypothesis might state that there is no difference
in the rate of cavities between different population groups or regions. For
example, "There is no significant difference in the incidence of dental caries
between children who consume fluoridated water and those who do not."
6. Dental Education: Null hypotheses can be used to evaluate
the impact of new educational methods or interventions on dental student
performance. For instance, "There is no significant improvement in the manual
dexterity skills of dental students using virtual reality training compared to
traditional methods."
7. Oral Hygiene Products: Researchers might hypothesize that a
new toothpaste does not offer any additional benefits over existing products.
The null hypothesis would be that "There is no significant difference in plaque
reduction between the new toothpaste and the market leader."
To test the null hypothesis, researchers conduct statistical analyses on the
data collected from their studies. If the results indicate that the null
hypothesis is likely to be true (usually determined by a p-value greater than
the chosen significance level, such as 0.05), they fail to reject it. However,
if the results suggest that the null hypothesis is unlikely to be true,
researchers reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis,
which posits a relationship, difference, or effect between the variables.
In each of these applications, the null hypothesis is essential for maintaining
a rigorous scientific approach to dental research. It helps to minimize the risk
of confirmation bias and ensures that conclusions are drawn from objective
evidence rather than assumptions or expectations.
Classifications of epidemiologic research
1. Descriptive research —involves description, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of data to evaluate a current event or situation
a. incidence—number of new cases of a specific disease within a defined population over a period of time
b. Prevalence—number of persons in a population affected by a condition at any one time
c. Count—simplest sum of disease: number of cases of disease occurrence
d. Proportion—use of a count with the addition of a denominator to determine prevalence:
does not include a time dimension: useful to evaluate prevalence of caries in schoolchildren or tooth loss in adult populations
e. Rate— uses a standardized denominator and includes a time dimension. for example. the number of deaths of newborn infants within first year of life per 1000 births
2. Analytical research—determines the cause of disease or if a causal relationship exists between a factor and a disease
a. Prospective study—planning of the entire study is completed before data are collected and analyzed; population is followed through time to determine which members develop the disease; several hypotheses may be tested at on time
b. Cohort study—individuals are classified into groups according to whether or not they pos- sess a particular characteristic thought to be related to the condition of interest; observations occur over time to see who develops dis ease or condition
c. Retrospective study— decision to carry out an investigation using observations or data that have been collected in the past; data may be incomplete or in a manner not appropriate for study
d. Cross-sectional study— study of subgroups of individuals in a specific and limited time frame to identify either initially to describe current status or developmental changes in the overall group from the perspective of what is typical in each subgroup
e. Longitudinal study—investigation of the same group of individuals over an extended period of time to identify a change or devel opment in that group
3. Experimental research—used when the etiology of the disease is established and the researcher wishes to determine the effectiveness of altering some factor or factors; deliberate applying or withholding of the supposed cause of a condition and observing the result
Berkson's Bias is a type of selection bias that occurs in case-control studies, particularly when the cases and controls are selected from a hospital or clinical setting. It arises when the selection of cases (individuals with the disease) and controls (individuals without the disease) is influenced by the presence of other conditions or factors, leading to a distortion in the association between exposure and outcome.
Key Features of Berkson's Bias
-
Hospital-Based Selection: Berkson's Bias typically occurs in studies where both cases and controls are drawn from the same hospital or clinical setting. This can lead to a situation where the controls are not representative of the general population.
-
Association with Other Conditions: Individuals who are hospitalized may have multiple health issues or risk factors that are not present in the general population. This can create a misleading association between the exposure being studied and the disease outcome.
-
Underestimation or Overestimation of Risk: Because the controls may have different health profiles compared to the general population, the odds ratio calculated in the study may be biased. This can lead to either an overestimation or underestimation of the true association between the exposure and the disease.
Example of Berkson's Bias
Consider a study investigating the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, where both cases (lung cancer patients) and controls (patients without lung cancer) are selected from a hospital. If the controls are patients with other diseases that are also related to smoking (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), this could lead to Berkson's Bias. The controls may have a higher prevalence of smoking than the general population, which could distort the perceived association between smoking and lung cancer.
Implications of Berkson's Bias
- Misleading Conclusions: Berkson's Bias can lead researchers to draw incorrect conclusions about the relationship between exposures and outcomes, which can affect public health recommendations and clinical practices.
- Generalizability Issues: Findings from studies affected by Berkson's Bias may not be generalizable to the broader population, limiting the applicability of the results.
Mitigating Berkson's Bias
To reduce the risk of Berkson's Bias in research, researchers can:
-
Select Controls from the General Population: Instead of selecting controls from a hospital, researchers can use population-based controls to ensure a more representative sample.
-
Use Multiple Control Groups: Employing different control groups can help identify and account for potential biases.
-
Stratify Analyses: Stratifying analyses based on relevant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities) can help to control for confounding factors.
-
Conduct Sensitivity Analyses: Performing sensitivity analyses can help assess how robust the findings are to different assumptions about the data.
EPIDEMIOLOGY
Epidemiology is the study of the Distribution and determinants of disease frequency in Humans.
Epidemiology— study of health and disease in human populations and how these states are influenced by the environment and ways of living; concerned with factors and conditions that determine the occurrence and distribution of health. disease, defects. disability and deaths among individuals
Epidemiology, in conjunction with the statistical and research methods used, focuses on comparison between groups or defined populations
Characteristics of epidemiology:
1. Groups rather than individuals are studied
2. Disease is multifactorial; host-agent-environment relationship becomes critical
3. A disease state depends on exposure to a specific agent, strength of the agent. susceptibility of the host, and environmental conditions
4. Factors
- Host: age, race, ethnic background, physiologic state, gender, culture
- Agent: chemical, microbial, physical or mechanical irritants, parasitic, viral or bacterial
- Environment: climate or physical environment, food sources, socioeconomic conditions
5. Interaction among factors affects disease or health status
Uses of epidemiology
I. Study of patterns among groups
2. Collecting data to describe normal biologic processes
3. Understanding the natural history of disease
4. Testing hypotheses for prevention and control of disease through special studies in populations
5. Planning and evaluating health care services
6. Studying of non disease entities such as suicide or accidents
7. Measuring the distribution of diseases in populations
8. Identifying risk factors and determinants of disease