Cited by 318Dental Health and Care UtilizationOral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Education, Practice, Research

Long-term Dental Visiting Patterns and Adult Oral Health

Open access
Thomson, W.M., Williams, S.M., Broadbent, J.M., Poulton, R., Locker, D.·2010·Journal of Dental Research

Abstract

To date, the evidence supporting the benefits of dental visiting comes from cross-sectional studies. We investigated whether long-term routine dental visiting was associated with lower experience of dental caries and missing teeth, and better self-rated oral health, by age 32. A prospective cohort study in New Zealand examined 932 participants’ use of dentistry at ages 15, 18, 26, and 32. At each age, routine attenders (RAs) were identified as those who (a) usually visited for a check-up, and (b) had made a dental visit during the previous 12 months. Routine attending prevalence fell from 82% at age 15 to 28% by 32. At any given age, routine attenders had better-than-average oral health, fewer had teeth missing due to caries, and they had lower mean DS and DMFS scores. By age 32, routine attenders had better self-reported oral health and less tooth loss and caries. The longer routine attendance was maintained, the stronger the effect. Routine dental attendance is associated with better oral health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022034509356779

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomson, W. M., Williams, S. M., Broadbent, J. M., Poulton, R., & Locker, D.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Journal of Dental Research
Published
2010-01-21
Volume
89
Issue
3
Pages
307-311
ISSN
  • 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-0591
OpenAlex
W2098923537
Cited by
316
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dental Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE015260)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Dental Education, Practice, Research
Keywords
dental caries, tooth loss, oral health perception, DMFS index, dental check-ups, oral health maintenance, longitudinal cohort
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Dental Care, Humans, Oral Health, Patient Compliance, Population Surveillance, Preventive Dentistry, Prospective Studies, Health Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review