# Caries Prevention Research Paper

**Pages:** 8 (2878 words) ·
**Bibliography Sources:**
≈ 4 · **File:** .docx · **Level:** College Senior · **Topic:** Children

SAMPLE EXCERPT . . .

Thus, this research turned to already gathered data from reputable government sources in order to ensure the validity of the data. The sample was chosen from data provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Data was collected using the 2010 Health, United States, 2009: With Special Feature on Medical Technology. The sample source provided a multitude of different data from populations of children ages 6 through 19 across a thirty year span. This was an excellent source to test out the chosen variables, as it provided reliable observations from real clinical practice and covered such a long period. All cases of caries were confirmed by a dental professional and had to meet the strict criteria of the CDC sampling process. This ultimately helped secure strong data that was reliable and thus efficient for sampling purposes within the context of this current research.Buy full paper

for $19.77## Research Paper on

The next data set to compare these annual rates represented the statistics regarding the adding of fluoride to drinking water around the United States. Again turning to the CDC, statistics of individuals drinking water with fluoride added are recorded every two years since the practice began the middle of the Twentieth Century, starting in Grand Rapids Michigan in 1945 (CDC, 2012). Just as the previous data set, reliability was ensured by the source of the data. Statistics came from individual local and state governments who reported adding fluoride to local water sources. Overall U.S. Statistics from the two-year periods. Data sets representing 1989, 2004, and 2008 will be used in comparison to the rates of untreated tooth decay for the young sample population targeted in this research. Ultimately, these two factors are what made the data source so strong in testing the hypothesis presented here. Once the data was collected, statistical testing could begin. First, the data is presented in descriptive statistics, with the confidence interval presented. Then, a regression analysis was performed that showed correlation between the two variables. This regression analysis is shown in the following section, along with each correlation coefficient. Additionally, two hypothesis tests were conducted in order to determine whether our hypothesis was correct in its assertions. First, a z-test was performed. Then, a t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means was also performed.

Data Presentation

Data Set: Percent of Population with Untreated Caries

Age

Year

6-19

6-11

12-19

2008

16.2

20.2

13.3

2004

22.9

28.6

18.5

1989

23.6

27.6

20.5

Descriptive Statistics: Percent of Population with Untreated Caries

Ages 6-19

Ages 6-11

Ages 12-19

Mean

20.9

Mean

25.4

Mean

17.4

Standard Error

2.358671943

Standard Error

2.649108865

Standard Error

2.145796925

Median

22.9

Median

27.6

Median

18.5

Mode

#N/A

Mode

#N/A

Mode

#N/A

Standard Deviation

4.085339643

Standard Deviation

4.588391149

Standard Deviation

3.716629297

Sample Variance

16.69

Sample Variance

21.05

Sample Variance

13.81

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Skewness

-1.675018571

Skewness

-1.639956635

Skewness

-1.18511502

Range

7.4

Range

8.4

Range

7.2

Minimum

16.2

Minimum

20.2

Minimum

13.3

Maximum

23.6

Maximum

28.6

Maximum

20.5

Sum

62.7

Sum

76.4

Sum

52.3

Count

3

Count

3

Count

3

Largest (1)

23.6

Largest (1)

28.6

Largest (1)

20.5

Smallest (1)

16.2

Smallest (1)

20.2

Smallest (1)

13.3

Confidence Level (95.0%)

10.14854627

Confidence Level (95.0%)

11.39819549

Confidence Level (95.0%)

9.232618998

Data Set: Percent of Population Exposed to Fluoridated Water

Year

Percent

2008

72.4

2004

68.7

1989

60.5

Clearly, more and more of the population have been exposed to water with fluoride added to it. In fact, the percent of the population has increased dramatically over just the past few decades. This ultimately means that more of the population, including children and young adults, are being exposed to this preventative measure.

Descriptive Statistics: Percent of Population Exposed to Fluoridated Water

Column1

Mean

67.2

Standard Error

3.516153201

Median

68.7

Mode

#N/A

Standard Deviation

6.090155991

Sample Variance

37.09

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Skewness

-1.041110123

Range

11.9

Minimum

60.5

Maximum

72.4

Sum

Count

3

Largest (1)

72.4

Smallest (1)

60.5

Confidence Level (95.0%)

15.12878617

Regression Testing

As the regression clearly shows, there is a statistically significant relationship between the rising levels of population being exposed to fluoride in their water and a decrease in the occurrence of untreated caries in children and young adults. Ultimately, the hypothesis was correct in assuming that fluoridation of water can help augment holes in children and young adults' oral care regiment, which can lead to a decrease in the occurrence of cavities and other oral health concerns. Such conclusions can be used to suggest that fluoridation practices are successful and should continue to increase on a localized basis, as they are clearly showing strong positive results within the sample population.

Data Analysis

For each of the two hypothesis tests performed, there is the hypothesis (H1: p >< p0) that increasing use of fluoridation in water is reducing the numbers of untreated caries in all age groups. Thus, the null hypothesis (H0: p = p0 ) is that increasing fluoridation of water has no affect on untreated caries in children and young adults.

Z Test

Age

2008

2004

1989

Variance

6 to 19

16.2

22.9

23.6

16.69

6 to 11

20.2

28.6

27.6

21.05333

12 to 19

13.3

18.5

20.5

13.81333

Year

Percent

2008

72.4

2004

68.7

1989

60.5

Variance

37.09

Ages 6-19

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

16.2

Mean

64.6

23.25

Known Variance

37.09

16.69

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

7.974071267

P (Z<=z) one-tail

7.77156E-16

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

1.55431E-15

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

Ages 6-11

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

20.2

Mean

64.6

28.1

Known Variance

37.09

21.05333

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

6.769520562

P (Z<=z) one-tail

6.4605E-12

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

1.2921E-11

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

Ages 12-19

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

13.3

Mean

64.6

19.5

Known Variance

37.09

13.81333

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

8.939607325

P (Z<=z) one-tail

0

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

0

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

For all age groups, the P. value is greater that 0, indicating that the alternative hypothesis is correct. This can be seen when examining the test with all age groups considered especially. Here, the one tail P. value is 7.77156 and the two tail P. value is 1.55431, both greater than 0. Ultimately, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is enough of a statistical significance to show that the alternative hypothesis is confirmed, meaning that as the levels of fluoridation increase, and the rates of untreated caries within the age group decrease. As seen in the individual age group categories, this result is repeated as well, making the alternative hypothesis confirmed for all age groups.

T-Test

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Ages 6-19 with Caries

Percent Fluoridated

Mean

20.9

67.2

Variance

16.69

37.09

Observations

3

3

Pearson Correlation

-0.794401826

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

df

2

t Stat

-8.301900494

P (T<=t) one-tail

0.00710046

t Critical one-tail

2.91998558

P (T<=t) two-tail

0.014200919

t Critical two-tail

4.30265273

Using the t-Test for paired sample for means, the alternative hypothesis is again confirmed and the null hypothesis is rejected. Here, the P. value is slightly greater than 0, being 0.00710046 and 0.014200919 for the two-tail test. Ultimately, that suggests that the alternative hypothesis is confirmed, meaning again that as the levels of fluoridation increase, the levels of untreated caries for children and young adults ages 6 to 19 decreases.

Conclusions

Clearly, adding fluoride to the water is having an impact on the numbers of untreated caries in children and young adults, ages 6 to 19. Using regression, z-Test, and t-Test statistical analysis, it is clear that the numbers of untreated caries for children ages 6 to 19 are decreasing alongside increasing use of fluoride in drinking water sources. This shows that the secondary prevention strategy is working alongside all other primary prevention strategies. Ultimately, adding fluoride to water sources is a good way to augment all other primary prevention strategies, especially in cases with children who may not be as adamant about following strict dental hygiene routines.

Still, there were some limitations to this study that can be improved in future research. Obviously, there are a number of other variables that can be… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Thus, this research turned to already gathered data from reputable government sources in order to ensure the validity of the data. The sample was chosen from data provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Data was collected using the 2010 Health, United States, 2009: With Special Feature on Medical Technology. The sample source provided a multitude of different data from populations of children ages 6 through 19 across a thirty year span. This was an excellent source to test out the chosen variables, as it provided reliable observations from real clinical practice and covered such a long period. All cases of caries were confirmed by a dental professional and had to meet the strict criteria of the CDC sampling process. This ultimately helped secure strong data that was reliable and thus efficient for sampling purposes within the context of this current research.Buy full paper

for $19.77

## Research Paper on *Caries Prevention* Assignment

The next data set to compare these annual rates represented the statistics regarding the adding of fluoride to drinking water around the United States. Again turning to the CDC, statistics of individuals drinking water with fluoride added are recorded every two years since the practice began the middle of the Twentieth Century, starting in Grand Rapids Michigan in 1945 (CDC, 2012). Just as the previous data set, reliability was ensured by the source of the data. Statistics came from individual local and state governments who reported adding fluoride to local water sources. Overall U.S. Statistics from the two-year periods. Data sets representing 1989, 2004, and 2008 will be used in comparison to the rates of untreated tooth decay for the young sample population targeted in this research. Ultimately, these two factors are what made the data source so strong in testing the hypothesis presented here. Once the data was collected, statistical testing could begin. First, the data is presented in descriptive statistics, with the confidence interval presented. Then, a regression analysis was performed that showed correlation between the two variables. This regression analysis is shown in the following section, along with each correlation coefficient. Additionally, two hypothesis tests were conducted in order to determine whether our hypothesis was correct in its assertions. First, a z-test was performed. Then, a t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means was also performed.Data Presentation

Data Set: Percent of Population with Untreated Caries

Age

Year

6-19

6-11

12-19

2008

16.2

20.2

13.3

2004

22.9

28.6

18.5

1989

23.6

27.6

20.5

Descriptive Statistics: Percent of Population with Untreated Caries

Ages 6-19

Ages 6-11

Ages 12-19

Mean

20.9

Mean

25.4

Mean

17.4

Standard Error

2.358671943

Standard Error

2.649108865

Standard Error

2.145796925

Median

22.9

Median

27.6

Median

18.5

Mode

#N/A

Mode

#N/A

Mode

#N/A

Standard Deviation

4.085339643

Standard Deviation

4.588391149

Standard Deviation

3.716629297

Sample Variance

16.69

Sample Variance

21.05

Sample Variance

13.81

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Skewness

-1.675018571

Skewness

-1.639956635

Skewness

-1.18511502

Range

7.4

Range

8.4

Range

7.2

Minimum

16.2

Minimum

20.2

Minimum

13.3

Maximum

23.6

Maximum

28.6

Maximum

20.5

Sum

62.7

Sum

76.4

Sum

52.3

Count

3

Count

3

Count

3

Largest (1)

23.6

Largest (1)

28.6

Largest (1)

20.5

Smallest (1)

16.2

Smallest (1)

20.2

Smallest (1)

13.3

Confidence Level (95.0%)

10.14854627

Confidence Level (95.0%)

11.39819549

Confidence Level (95.0%)

9.232618998

Data Set: Percent of Population Exposed to Fluoridated Water

Year

Percent

2008

72.4

2004

68.7

1989

60.5

Clearly, more and more of the population have been exposed to water with fluoride added to it. In fact, the percent of the population has increased dramatically over just the past few decades. This ultimately means that more of the population, including children and young adults, are being exposed to this preventative measure.

Descriptive Statistics: Percent of Population Exposed to Fluoridated Water

Column1

Mean

67.2

Standard Error

3.516153201

Median

68.7

Mode

#N/A

Standard Deviation

6.090155991

Sample Variance

37.09

Kurtosis

#DIV/0!

Skewness

-1.041110123

Range

11.9

Minimum

60.5

Maximum

72.4

Sum

Count

3

Largest (1)

72.4

Smallest (1)

60.5

Confidence Level (95.0%)

15.12878617

Regression Testing

As the regression clearly shows, there is a statistically significant relationship between the rising levels of population being exposed to fluoride in their water and a decrease in the occurrence of untreated caries in children and young adults. Ultimately, the hypothesis was correct in assuming that fluoridation of water can help augment holes in children and young adults' oral care regiment, which can lead to a decrease in the occurrence of cavities and other oral health concerns. Such conclusions can be used to suggest that fluoridation practices are successful and should continue to increase on a localized basis, as they are clearly showing strong positive results within the sample population.

Data Analysis

For each of the two hypothesis tests performed, there is the hypothesis (H1: p >< p0) that increasing use of fluoridation in water is reducing the numbers of untreated caries in all age groups. Thus, the null hypothesis (H0: p = p0 ) is that increasing fluoridation of water has no affect on untreated caries in children and young adults.

Z Test

Age

2008

2004

1989

Variance

6 to 19

16.2

22.9

23.6

16.69

6 to 11

20.2

28.6

27.6

21.05333

12 to 19

13.3

18.5

20.5

13.81333

Year

Percent

2008

72.4

2004

68.7

1989

60.5

Variance

37.09

Ages 6-19

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

16.2

Mean

64.6

23.25

Known Variance

37.09

16.69

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

7.974071267

P (Z<=z) one-tail

7.77156E-16

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

1.55431E-15

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

Ages 6-11

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

20.2

Mean

64.6

28.1

Known Variance

37.09

21.05333

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

6.769520562

P (Z<=z) one-tail

6.4605E-12

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

1.2921E-11

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

Ages 12-19

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

72.4

13.3

Mean

64.6

19.5

Known Variance

37.09

13.81333

Observations

2

2

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

z

8.939607325

P (Z<=z) one-tail

0

z Critical one-tail

1.644853627

P (Z<=z) two-tail

0

z Critical two-tail

1.959963985

For all age groups, the P. value is greater that 0, indicating that the alternative hypothesis is correct. This can be seen when examining the test with all age groups considered especially. Here, the one tail P. value is 7.77156 and the two tail P. value is 1.55431, both greater than 0. Ultimately, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is enough of a statistical significance to show that the alternative hypothesis is confirmed, meaning that as the levels of fluoridation increase, and the rates of untreated caries within the age group decrease. As seen in the individual age group categories, this result is repeated as well, making the alternative hypothesis confirmed for all age groups.

T-Test

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Ages 6-19 with Caries

Percent Fluoridated

Mean

20.9

67.2

Variance

16.69

37.09

Observations

3

3

Pearson Correlation

-0.794401826

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

df

2

t Stat

-8.301900494

P (T<=t) one-tail

0.00710046

t Critical one-tail

2.91998558

P (T<=t) two-tail

0.014200919

t Critical two-tail

4.30265273

Using the t-Test for paired sample for means, the alternative hypothesis is again confirmed and the null hypothesis is rejected. Here, the P. value is slightly greater than 0, being 0.00710046 and 0.014200919 for the two-tail test. Ultimately, that suggests that the alternative hypothesis is confirmed, meaning again that as the levels of fluoridation increase, the levels of untreated caries for children and young adults ages 6 to 19 decreases.

Conclusions

Clearly, adding fluoride to the water is having an impact on the numbers of untreated caries in children and young adults, ages 6 to 19. Using regression, z-Test, and t-Test statistical analysis, it is clear that the numbers of untreated caries for children ages 6 to 19 are decreasing alongside increasing use of fluoride in drinking water sources. This shows that the secondary prevention strategy is working alongside all other primary prevention strategies. Ultimately, adding fluoride to water sources is a good way to augment all other primary prevention strategies, especially in cases with children who may not be as adamant about following strict dental hygiene routines.

Still, there were some limitations to this study that can be improved in future research. Obviously, there are a number of other variables that can be… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

?

**1.**Buy full paper (8 pages)

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

**2.**Write a NEW paper for me!

We'll follow your exact instructions!

Chat with the writer 24/7.

### How to Cite "Caries Prevention" Research Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Caries Prevention. (2014, July 20). Retrieved May 26, 2020, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/caries-prevention/3581516MLA Format

"Caries Prevention." 20 July 2014. Web. 26 May 2020. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/caries-prevention/3581516>.Chicago Style

"Caries Prevention." Essaytown.com. July 20, 2014. Accessed May 26, 2020.https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/caries-prevention/3581516.