GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Key Message

This study highlights that the use of dental floss is significantly influenced not only by personal health behavior habits but also by socioeconomic status. Individuals in higher income classes tend to use dental floss more frequently, which is associated with higher levels of education, health literacy, and economic resources. Public health planning should take economic factors into account and focus on improving dental hygiene education and access to dental care products.

INTRODUCTION

Dental plaque is a sticky biofilm that forms on teeth and is a primary cause of major dental diseases, such as dental caries and periodontal diseases [1,2]. The primary method for controlling the accumulation of supragingival plaque is the mechanical removal of dental plaque [3]. The most common technique for mechanical dental plaque control is toothbrushing [4]. Although toothbrushing is fundamental to oral hygiene, its effectiveness is limited by the user’s technique and the toothbrush’s ability to access all tooth surfaces. Specifically, toothbrushes are less effective at removing plaque from interproximal surfaces [5]. In addition to toothbrushing, dental floss, when used as a supplementary aid, can effectively target the difficult-to-reach areas between teeth and help reduce gingival inflammation [6]. Gingivitis and periodontal disease are the second most commonly reported outpatient diseases in Korea, leading to a significant burden of periodontal disease for many people. This burden results in the loss of social resources and requires substantial financial resources [7,8]. The use of oral care products is a behavior that can prevent gingivitis and periodontal disease, potentially reducing oral health inequalities that arise from the treatment of oral diseases due to varying income levels [9]. The American Dental Association reports that using dental floss may remove up to 80% of dental plaque and recommends its use at least once daily [10]. However, various factors contribute to the persistently low rates of dental floss use [11,12]. Notably, findings from a cross-sectional study spanning 12 years indicate that more than 80% of Korean adults over the age of 30 do not engage in flossing [13].

Socioeconomic disparities in oral health are a major public health concern worldwide [14]. The relationship between individual or household income and oral health status has garnered considerable attention. However, the relationship between income level and oral health behaviors, particularly the use of dental floss, has not been extensively explored. Research conducted in the United States has revealed substantial socioeconomic disparities across most oral health-related behaviors [15]. This correlation highlights the influence of economic status on oral health behaviors and practices. It can be inferred that individuals with greater financial resources not only have better access to dental care services but may also possess a higher awareness and capability to maintain oral health behaviors, such as using dental floss.

A previous cohort study conducted in Iran reported socioeconomic inequalities in flossing [16]. However, that study focused solely on socioeconomic status and education levels, neglecting potential confounding factors such as the frequency of daily toothbrushing, the conduct of oral examinations, periodontitis, smoking, or alcohol consumption. By taking these factors into account, we can more accurately determine whether a true association exists between flossing and economic status.

Based on current knowledge, the issue of socioeconomic inequalities in dental flossing among Korean adults warrants further investigation. We hypothesized that flossing is more prevalent in households with higher income levels, reflecting socioeconomic disparities in oral health behaviors. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to assess the impact of household income on the rate of dental flossing in the Korean adult population aged over 30 with 20 or more natural teeth, using data from the seventh Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES VII).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data and study population

This study analyzed data from the KNHANES VII. The KNHANES is a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey designed to assess the health and nutritional status of the Korean population [17]. The sampling framework employed a multistage clustered probability design, selecting participants from 576 districts across Korea to ensure comprehensive representation of the population [18]. Only individuals with 20 or more teeth were included in this study, as the number of teeth affects their spacing and arrangement, which in turn influences flossing. For individuals with 20 or more teeth in the oral cavity, dental flossing may significantly prevent periodontitis [19]. In this study, the rate of flossing was higher among participants with ≥ 20 remaining teeth than in those with < 20 remaining teeth (Figure 1). The study initially included 9,459 individuals, aged 30 years and over and with 20 or more natural teeth. In studies utilizing data from the KNHANES that focus on income-related aspects, research participants are frequently selected from the age group of 30 years and above [13,20]. This selection criterion is based on the understanding that individuals below this age threshold may not yet have established their own income sources and typically exhibit better oral health outcomes. Thus, the data are typically restricted to this older age group, enabling more dependable inferences about the relationship between income status and oral health. Nevertheless, due to incomplete or missing data concerning flossing, 78 participants were excluded from the analysis. As a result, the final cohort for the study was composed of 9,381 participants.

Outcome variable

Flossing was the primary outcome measured in this study. Dental flossing habits were assessed using self-reported data obtained from the survey participants.

Explanatory variable

Household income was the explanatory variable. We utilized the monthly average equivalized household income quartile for each year as the classification criterion due to differences in income across the survey years [21]. The categories were defined as lowest, medium-low, medium-high, and highest.

Covariates

The covariates in the analysis included socio-demographic factors, personal health practices, and medical status. The socio-demographic factors analyzed included age (continuous, years) and gender (man or woman). Personal health practices were assessed based on the frequency of daily toothbrushing (categorized as ≤ 1 or ≥ 2 times/day) and whether oral examinations had been conducted in the past year (categorized as yes or no). Medical status variables included the presence of periodontitis (categorized as yes or no), smoking status (categorized as current, past, or never), and alcohol consumption (yes or no).

Statistical analysis

Age was treated as a continuous variable, while other variables were analyzed as categorical variables. Descriptive statistics are presented as weighted percentages (%) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), derived from complex sampling methods. A chi-square analysis was conducted to examine variations in dental flossing habits across different ages and household income groups. To investigate the effect of household income on dental flossing, logistic regression within a complex sample design was employed. We analyzed several models, each adjusting for different covariates (model 1: age and gender; model 2: oral examinations in the past year, daily toothbrushing, and periodontitis; model 3: smoking and alcohol consumption). These adjustments aimed to mitigate potential confounding effects on the relationship between household income and flossing frequency. Furthermore, we stratified the data by age group, gender, and periodontal health status and applied a complex-sample logistic regression model to evaluate the relationship between household income and the rate of flossing. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p<0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Ethics statement

The study protocol, including the use of human participants and ethical considerations, was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Korean Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA). Approval for this study was granted under number ‘2018-01-03-P-A’. All respondents provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

The study included 9,391 adults aged 30 and older, comprising 3,983 men and 5,398 women, as per the unweighted participant count. Table 1 offers a comprehensive description of the study population, detailing demographics and various confounding variables, and categorizes the data based on flossing. The analysis revealed a clear gradient in flossing behavior associated with household income among individuals aged 30 and above who had more than 20 natural teeth. Those in the highest income bracket showed a flossing rate of 10.6% (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.6), which was significantly higher than the 2.0% rate (95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) recorded in the lowest income bracket. Flossing rates in intermediate income levels increased progressively; the medium-low and medium-high income groups reported flossing rates of 5.9% (95% CI, 5.3 to 6.5) and 9.1% (95% CI, 8.4 to 9.9), respectively.

Table 2 presents the multivariate association between household income levels and dental floss use rates, providing odds ratios with 95% CIs across 3 models. All results were significant, with a p-value of less than 0.05. In the simplest model (model 1), the highest income level was associated with nearly double the odds of using dental floss compared to the lowest income level, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.92 (95% CI, 1.51 to 2.44). Models 2 and 3 included additional variables and controlled for potential confounding factors. Despite these adjustments, the trends remained consistent. The highest income group’s aOR decreased slightly to 1.65 (95% CI, 1.30 to 2.11) in model 2 and to 1.63 (95% CI, 1.27 to 2.08) in model 3. Nevertheless, a significantly higher likelihood of using dental floss among the higher income groups persisted. The medium-high and medium-low income groups also demonstrated a statistically significant association with flossing in both adjusted models.

Based on the significant aORs shown in Table 3, this study identified compelling associations between household income levels and flossing across various demographic categories and periodontal statuses. Notably, within the 50-59-year age group, individuals in the highest income bracket were 69% more likely to use dental floss (aOR, 1.69) than those in the lowest income bracket. This association was even more pronounced among older adults (≥ 70 years), where individuals in the medium-high and highest income brackets showed nearly triple and double the likelihood of using dental floss, respectively (aORs up to 3.64).

Significant gender differences were also observed, with women demonstrating a stronger and more consistent association between higher incomes and flossing across the medium-high and highest income brackets (aORs, 1.64 to 1.67). Thus, women with higher incomes were more likely to use dental floss than those with lower incomes.

Regarding periodontal health status, individuals without periodontitis and with higher incomes were more likely to use dental floss, as indicated by significant aORs of 1.41, 1.66, and 1.64 across different income levels. Conversely, among individuals with periodontitis, a significant association was only found at the highest income level, with an aOR of 1.64, corresponding to a 63.7% higher likelihood of flossing.

DISCUSSION

Our study indicates that the use of dental floss is not solely a matter of personal hygiene habits but is significantly influenced by socioeconomic status, with individuals in higher income brackets more likely to use dental floss. This disparity underscores the importance of public health initiatives aimed at improving oral health literacy and making oral care products more accessible across various income levels. By expanding access to and education about oral health care, especially among lower-income groups, we can help reduce the observed inequalities in flossing and, consequently, in overall oral health outcomes. Reflecting on the broader implications of our findings, it is clear that addressing these disparities requires a comprehensive approach, as supported by our study and corroborated by existing research. Our results align with previous studies [16] that have shown that individuals with higher incomes are more likely to use dental floss than those with lower incomes, a pattern that persists even after adjusting for potential confounding factors. To date, this study is among the few that have assessed the relationship between household income level and flossing in the Korean adult population. Evidence from multiple sources indicates that the distribution of dental care utilization varies across countries and socioeconomic groups [22-24]. Research findings related to income inequality and oral health have consistently demonstrated a significant disparity in flossing [25,26]. Based on our findings and the literature, we have identified 4 potential reasons why household income levels might influence flossing.

The first factor to consider is the direct cost of purchasing dental floss. Numerous studies have demonstrated that household income inequality leads to decreased utilization of dental care services [27-29]. While dental floss is not prohibitively expensive, for households on tight budgets, even minor expenses can necessitate the prioritization of other essential needs over dental hygiene products. Second, economic status often correlates with educational level and health literacy [30]. Individuals with higher income levels generally have better access to education and are more likely to be aware of the benefits of flossing, the risks associated with poor oral hygiene, and the proper techniques for flossing [31]. Third, the issue of time poverty must also be considered. Those who work multiple jobs or long hours to make ends meet may find it challenging to dedicate time to oral healthcare, including daily hygiene practices [32]. For these individuals, the relatively quick act of flossing may be neglected in favor of other pressing daily concerns. Fourth, in lower-income communities, dental flossing may be perceived more as a luxury than a necessity [33,34]. This perception is exacerbated by a lack of targeted public health messaging that clarifies the importance of dental care and promotes flossing as an essential and accessible component of daily hygiene.

As shown in Figure 2, the usage rate of dental floss was consistently higher among those with higher incomes across all age groups compared to those with the lowest incomes. Interestingly, for individuals aged 30-39 years and 40-49 years, the rate of flossing by income level was not significant. As age increased, a distinct pattern emerged where the disparity in flossing between income levels became more pronounced. In the analysis stratified by age groups, we observed an association between household income and flossing in 3 specific age groups: the 50s, 60s, and over 70s. The increasing prevalence of periodontitis with age has led to greater interest in oral hygiene products among older adults [35]. For elderly adults, limited productivity and unemployment can lead to poverty and income instability [36]. This may be a reason for the socioeconomic gradient observed.

In the gender-stratified analysis, the relationship between household income and flossing was evident in women but not in men. Epidemiological studies have shown that, irrespective of age, oral health behaviors in men are generally poorer than those in women [37,38]. A previous study demonstrated that women are more likely than men to seek regular dental care, and that higher income correlates with more frequent dental visits [39]. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that women, typically being more conscious of oral healthcare, are more inclined to pay for oral hygiene products like dental floss if they have higher incomes.

In the analysis stratified by periodontal health, individuals with periodontitis in the highest income brackets used dental floss more frequently than those in the lowest income brackets. Among the healthy population without periodontitis, those in the middle and highest income levels also used dental floss more often than those in the lowest income level. Managing gingivitis is the primary prevention of periodontitis [40]. Notably, the use of dental floss can alleviate the symptoms of gingivitis [41,42]. From this, we can infer that individuals without periodontitis often use dental floss to prevent periodontal health issues. Those with periodontitis may be following their periodontist or dentist’s advice to use dental floss during treatment [43,44]. The use of oral health supplements is a relatively inexpensive and easily accessible method, making it an important factor in promoting oral health and preventing oral health inequality [45,46]. However, our results show that flossing varies according to income. This variation may be due to individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often having a poor self-perception of health and lacking health awareness [47]. Lastly, it can be speculated that individuals with periodontitis who have higher incomes are more aware of oral health and have greater financial means for care, leading to more frequent use of dental floss and other care products to limit the progression of periodontitis.

Our study has some limitations. First, as a cross-sectional study, it does not establish a causal relationship between household income and dental floss use. Additionally, the accuracy of the responses to our questionnaire may have been compromised by recall bias. Another significant limitation concerns our study population. The prevalence of severe periodontitis in elderly individuals might have been underrepresented due to the high incidence of edentulism and a significant number of missing teeth. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of having more than 20 teeth when used as an explanatory or outcome variable [48,49]. According to the KNHANES data, there was a notable difference in the prevalence of periodontitis based on the presence of more than 20 teeth among users of interdental cleaning devices. Consequently, groups with fewer than 20 teeth were excluded. Given this, it may be challenging to fully represent the actual situation, as those with poorer oral health, who are more likely to belong to lower-income groups, were not included. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between household income levels and flossing; therefore, educational level was not considered. Moreover, our study focused on Korean adults, limiting the generalizability of the results to other demographic groups, where different correlation patterns might be observed. Despite these limitations, the strength of this study lies in its use of a large national dataset, which enabled the analysis of a substantial number of samples. Our findings suggest the need for further public health initiatives in Korea. Future research should explore other aspects of oral health inequality, including studies with more inclusive criteria that encompass a broader spectrum of oral health conditions.

The results of this study highlight economic disparities in flossing among Korean adults. Individuals with higher incomes were found to floss their teeth significantly more often than those with lower incomes. This suggests that economic constraints prevent poorer individuals from engaging in this fundamental aspect of dental hygiene. These findings underscore the importance of considering economic factors in public health planning and the necessity for a more equitable allocation of health resources. Initiatives such as distributing dental care products in underserved communities or launching educational campaigns to enhance oral health awareness and promote better hygiene practices should be included in budget considerations.

NOTES

Data availability

The data used in this study were obtained from the seventh KNHANES (2016-2018) conducted by the KDCA. Those interested in the data underpinning this research can make a direct request from the corresponding author, Hyun-Jae Cho. For data access, visit the website (https://knhanes.kdca.go.kr/knhanes/sub03/sub03_02_05.do) and complete the necessary application form.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study.

Funding

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2020R1C1C1013322).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Wang ZL, Kim SJ, Cho HJ. Data curation: Wang ZL, Kim SJ, Ryu SH, Choi EJ. Formal analysis: Wang ZL, Kim SJ, Cho HJ. Funding acquisition: Cho HJ. Methodology: Wang ZL, Kim SJ, Cho HJ, Ryu SH, Choi EJ. Writing - original draft: Wang ZL, Kim SJ, Choi EJ. Writing - review & editing: Cho HJ, Kim SJ, Wang ZL, Choi EJ, Ryu SH.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Figure 1.

Age group variation in dental floss usage according to number of natural teeth.

Figure 2.

Household income-based differences in interdental brush usage among age groups.

REFERENCES

• 1. Jakubovics NS, Goodman SD, Mashburn-Warren L, Stafford GP, Cieplik F. The dental plaque biofilm matrix. Periodontol 2000 2021;86:32-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.1236ArticlePubMedPMC
• 2. Rosan B, Lamont RJ. Dental plaque formation. Microbes Infect 2000;2:1599-1607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1286-4579(00)01316-2ArticlePubMed
• 3. Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA. Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene: interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol 1998;69:759-764. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1998.69.7.759ArticlePubMed
• 4. Berchier CE, Slot DE, Haps S, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of dental floss in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 2008;6:265-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5037.2008.00336.xArticlePubMed
• 5. Yankell SL, Shi X, Spirgel CM. Laboratory interproximal access efficacy of four elmex caries protection toothbrushes. J Clin Dent 2012;23:27-31.ArticlePubMed
• 6. Shamsoddin E. Dental floss as an adjuvant of the toothbrush helps gingival health. Evid Based Dent 2022;23:94-96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0818-xArticlePubMed
• 7. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2020 Medical aid statistics; 2021 [cited 2024 Jan 26]. Available from: https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAJ030000007001&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=4&pageIndex=1&pageIndex2=1 (Korean)Article
• 8. Shin H, Kim J. Differences in income-related inequality and horizontal inequity in ambulatory care use between rural and non-rural areas: using the 1998-2001 U.S. National Health Interview Survey data. Int J Equity Health 2010;9:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-9-17ArticlePubMedPMC
• 9. Lee JY, Park HJ, Lee HJ, Cho HJ. The use of an interdental brush mitigates periodontal health inequalities: the Korean National Health and nutrition examination survey (KNHANES). BMC Oral Health 2019;19:168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0858-6ArticlePubMedPMC
• 10. Toshniwal SH, Reche A, Bajaj P, Maloo LM. Status quo in mechanical plaque control then and now: a review. Cureus 2022;14:e28613. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.28613ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Han SJ, Bae KH, Lee HJ, Kim SJ, Cho HJ. Association between regular walking and periodontitis according to socioeconomic status: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep 2019;9:12969. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49505-2ArticlePubMedPMC
• 12. Kim EJ, Han SJ. The effect of proximal cleaning devices on periodontal status in Korean adults between 2016 and 2018. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:2116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042116ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Han SJ. The use of interdental care products in Korean adults aged 30 years and older and factors affecting their use: 4th to 7th Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:8639. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148639ArticlePubMedPMC
• 14. Watt R, Sheiham A. Inequalities in oral health: a review of the evidence and recommendations for action. Br Dent J 1999;187:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4800191ArticlePubMed
• 15. Sabbah W, Tsakos G, Sheiham A, Watt RG. The role of health-related behaviors in the socioeconomic disparities in oral health. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:298-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.10.030ArticlePubMed
• 16. Soofi M, Karami-Matin B, Pasdar Y, Hamzeh B, Moradi-Nazar M, Ameri H, et al. What explains socioeconomic inequalities in dental flossing? Cross-sectional results from the RaNCD cohort study. J Prev Med Hyg 2020;61:E215-E220. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2020.61.2.1394ArticlePubMedPMC
• 17. Oh K, Kim Y, Kweon S, Kim S, Yun S, Park S, et al. Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 20th anniversary: accomplishments and future directions. Epidemiol Health 2021;43:e2021025. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2021025ArticlePubMedPMC
• 18. Kweon S, Kim Y, Jang MJ, Kim Y, Kim K, Choi S, et al. Data resource profile: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:69-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt228ArticlePubMedPMC
• 19. Kim YJ, Gil YM, Bae KH, Kim SJ, Ihm J, Cho HJ. The use of interdental cleaning devices and periodontal disease contingent on the number of remaining teeth in Korean adults. Sci Rep 2022;12:13853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17885-7ArticlePubMedPMC
• 20. Lee K, Lim HT, Hwang SS, Chae DW, Park SM. Socio-economic disparities in behavioural risk factors for cancer and use of cancer screening services in Korean adults aged 30 years and older: the Third Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005 (KNHANES III). Public Health 2010;124:698-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2010.07.004ArticlePubMed
• 21. Park MY, Lee J, Kim HR, Lee YM, Ahn J, Lee DW, et al. Long working hours and risk of depression by household income level: findings from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). J Occup Environ Med 2022;64:99-104. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002419ArticlePubMed
• 22. Listl S. Countries with public dental care coverage have lower social inequalities in the use of dental services than countries without such coverage. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2015;15:41-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2014.12.001ArticlePubMed
• 23. Gerdtham UG. Equity in health care utilization: further tests based on hurdle models and Swedish micro data. Health Econ 1997;6:303-319. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<303::aid-hec270>3.0.co;2-pArticlePubMed
• 24. Listl S. Inequalities in dental attendance throughout the life-course. J Dent Res 2012;91(7 Suppl):91S-97S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512447953ArticlePubMedPMC
• 25. Moraes RB, Marques BB, Cocco DM, Knorst JK, Tomazoni F, Ardenghi TM. Effect of environmental and socioeconomic factors on the use of dental floss among children: a hierarchical approach. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e096. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor2019.vol33.0096ArticlePubMed
• 26. Chen MS, Stone DB. Toothbrushing, flossing, and dental visits in relation to socioeconomic characteristics of white American families. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983;11:325-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01386.xArticlePubMed
• 27. Rezaei S, Hajizadeh M, Irandoost SF, Salimi Y. Socioeconomic inequality in dental care utilization in Iran: a decomposition approach. Int J Equity Health 2019;18:161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1072-5ArticlePubMedPMC
• 28. Listl S. Income-related inequalities in dental service utilization by Europeans aged 50+. J Dent Res 2011;90:717-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511399907ArticlePubMedPMC
• 29. Najafi E, Amini-Rarani M, Moeeni M. Inequality in dental care expenditure in Iranian households: analysis of income quintiles and educational levels. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:550. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01912-6ArticlePubMedPMC
• 30. Sabbah W, Sheiham A. The relationships between cognitive ability and dental status in a national sample of USA adults. Intelligence 2010;38:605-610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.08.003Article
• 31. Hakeem FF, Sabbah W. Is there socioeconomic inequality in periodontal disease among adults with optimal behaviours. Acta Odontol Scand 2019;77:400-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2019.1582795ArticlePubMed
• 32. Irie K, Tsuneishi M, Saijo M, Suzuki C, Yamamoto T. Occupational difference in oral health status and behaviors in Japanese workers: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:8081. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138081ArticlePubMedPMC
• 33. Ha DH, Do LG, Luzzi L, Mejia GC, Jamieson L. Changes in area-level socioeconomic status and oral health of indigenous Australian children. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2016;27(1 Suppl):110-124. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2016.0034Article
• 34. Jamieson LM, Thomson WM. Adult oral health inequalities described using area-based and household-based socioeconomic status measures. J Public Health Dent 2006;66:104-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2006.tb02564.xArticlePubMed
• 35. Calabrese JM, Rawal K. Demographics and oral health care utilization for older adults. Dent Clin North Am 2021;65:241-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2020.11.003ArticlePubMed
• 36. Kim S, Subramanian SV. Income volatility and depressive symptoms among elderly Koreans. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:3580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193580ArticlePubMedPMC
• 37. Abe M, Mitani A, Hoshi K, Yanagimoto S. Large gender gap in oral hygiene behavior and its impact on gingival health in late adolescence. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:4394. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124394ArticlePubMedPMC
• 38. Górska R, Górski B. Self-reported oral status and habits related to oral care in adult Poles: a questionnaire study. Dent Med Probl 2018;55:313-320. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/91774ArticlePubMed
• 39. Chen M, Wright CD, Tokede O, Yansane A, Montasem A, Kalenderian E, et al. Predictors of dental care utilization in north-central Appalachia in the USA. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2019;47:283-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12453ArticlePubMedPMC
• 40. Chapple IL, Van der Weijden F, Doerfer C, Herrera D, Shapira L, Polak D, et al. Primary prevention of periodontitis: managing gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42 Suppl 16:S71-S76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12366ArticlePubMed
• 41. Londero AB, Reiniger AP, Tavares RC, Ferreira CM, Wikesjö UM, Kantorski KZ, et al. Efficacy of dental floss in the management of gingival health: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26:5273-5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04495-wArticlePubMed
• 42. Zanatta FB, Moreira CH, Rösing CK. Association between dental floss use and gingival conditions in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:812-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.028ArticlePubMed
• 43. Särner B, Birkhed D, Andersson P, Lingström P. Recommendations by dental staff and use of toothpicks, dental floss and interdental brushes for approximal cleaning in an adult Swedish population. Oral Health Prev Dent 2010;8:185-194. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.a19214ArticlePubMed
• 44. Sambunjak D, Nickerson JW, Poklepovic T, Johnson TM, Imai P, Tugwell P, et al. Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;CD008829. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008829.pub2ArticlePubMed
• 45. Kim SJ, Lee JY, Kim SH, Cho HJ. Effect of interdental cleaning devices on proximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2022;50:414-420. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12690ArticlePubMed
• 46. Lee JY, Kim SJ, Lee HJ, Cho HJ. Effect of triweekly interdental brushing on bleeding reduction in adults: a six-month retrospective study. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9:1239. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9091239ArticlePubMedPMC
• 47. Finlayson TL, Siefert K, Ismail AI, Sohn W. Maternal self-efficacy and 1-5-year-old children’s brushing habits. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:272-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00313.xArticlePubMed
• 48. Ishikawa S, Konta T, Susa S, Ishizawa K, Togashi H, Ueno Y, et al. Association between presence of 20 or more natural teeth and all-cause, cancer-related, and cardiovascular disease-related mortality: Yamagata (Takahata) prospective observational study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:353. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01346-6ArticlePubMedPMC
• 49. Pan MY, Hsieh TC, Tai HC, Lin MS, Lin YC, Chen MY. Prevalence of and factors associated with fewer than 20 remaining teeth in Taiwanese adults with disabilities: a community-based cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016270. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016270ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Histopathogenesis of proximal caries: An expanded hypothesis
  Frederico Barbosa de Sousa, Nikolas Paganini Alves de Oliveira
  Medical Hypotheses.2026; 206: 111851.     CrossRef
• Economic Conditions Associated with Oral Health Problems among Parents at an Educational Institution in Lima, Peru: A Cross-Sectional Study
  Lucia Lucero Paz Olivera
  Alpha Centauri.2026; 7(3): 02.     CrossRef
• Central adiposity indices and inflammatory markers mediate the association between life’s crucial 9 and periodontitis in US adults
  Jia-Jie Guo, Qi-Qi Hang, Ting Xu, Wei-Xuan Liang, Jia-Kun Gao, Hong-Biao Ou, Fu-Zhen Jiang, Xi-Chen-Hui Qiu, Zu-Zhang Tian, Yu-zhong Zhang, Jing Zhang
  Lipids in Health and Disease.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef