Dental Epidemiology Programme: oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015

A report on the prevalence and severity
of dental decay
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
2
About Public Health England
Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing,
and reduce health inequalities. It does this through world-class science, knowledge and
intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public health services.
PHE is an operationally autonomous executive agency of the Department of Health.
Public Health England
Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London SE1 8UG
Tel: 020 7654 8000
www.gov.uk/phe
Twitter: @PHE_uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland
Prepared by: Dental Public Health Intelligence Team
For queries relating to this document, contact: DentalPHIntelligence@phe.gov.uk
© Crown copyright 2016
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or
medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence,
visit OGL or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third
party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders
concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to
DentalPHIntelligence@phe.gov.uk
Published: May 2016
PHE publications gateway number: 2016050
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
3
Contents
About Public Health England 2
Executive summary 4
Introduction 5
Section 1. Method 6
Section 2. Results 7
Participation in the survey 7
Prevalence of dental decay at age five 8
Severity of dental decay at age five 9
The number of currently decayed teeth at age five 11
The care index 12
Prevalence of children with extracted teeth (due to dental decay) at age five 13
Children with sepsis at the time of the examination 14
Children with substantial amounts of plaque at the time of the examination 14
Dental decay affecting incisors 15
Comparisons by ethnic background 16
Comparisons with other surveys over time 19
Comparison of inequalities over time 21
Section 3. Implications of results 22
Variations in health 22
Changes in levels of dental decay over time 23
Putting this information to use 24
Section 4. References 25
Section 5. Summarised tables 28
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
4
Executive summary
The summarised results in this report are from the third National Dental Epidemiology
Programme for England, oral health survey of five-year-old children, 2015.i
Estimates at
national, regional, Public Health England (PHE) centre and upper and lower-tier local
authority level are given for decay prevalence and severity. This data is the source for
the dental indicator (proportion of children aged five who are free from obvious tooth
decay) included in the Public Health Outcomes Framework.
1
Overall, 75.2% of five-year-old children in England whose parents gave consent for
participation in this survey had no experience of obvious dental decay. This is the third
consecutive survey which has shown improvement in the proportion of children who are
free of obvious decay. Among the 24.7% of children with some experience of obvious
decay, the average number of teeth that were decayed, missing or filled was 3.4 (at age
five, children normally have 20 primary teeth). The average number of decayed, missing
or filled teeth in the whole sample (including the 75.2% who were decay free) was 0.8.

The results reveal wide variation at regional and local authority level for both prevalence
and severity of dental decay. The areas with poorer oral health tend to be in the north
and in the more deprived local authority areas.
Summary results can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this report. Full tables
of results are available at www.nwph.net/dentalhealth.
The methods used in this survey were the same as those used in previous surveys
during 2008ii and 2012iii
, therefore it is possible to make comparisons between these
surveys. The results show a continued increase in the proportion of children with no
obvious dental decay from 69.1% in 2008 and 72.1% in 2012 to 75.2% in 2015,
equating to a change of six percentage points and an improvement of 8.8% since 2008.
The average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth has fallen from 1.1 in 2008 and
0.9 in 2012 to 0.8 in 2015, a reduction in severity of 27.3% since 2008.
The requirement for positive consent for children to take part prevents comparison with
the 1992 to 2006 series of surveysiv. During the 1992 to 2006 series there was little
change in the prevalence or severity of decay, however, data from the 2008 to 2015
series show a reduction that requires further investigation to determine the possible

i
These survey data were collected during the 2014-15 school year but are referred to here as 2015. ii These survey data were collected during the 2007-08 school year but are referred to here as 2008. iii These survey data were collected during the 2011-12 school year but are referred to here as 2012. iv Department of Health guidance in 2007 required written parental consent be gained for children to be examined in the
surveys. This replaced passive consent which had been used for the previous 20 years.
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
5
causes. Surveys in Wales and Scotland have shown similar trends over a similar
period.
2,3
Local authorities have had responsibility for improving health and reducing inequalities,
including oral health, since April 2013.
4,5 This report provides benchmarking data that may
be used in joint strategic needs assessments and oral health needs assessments to plan
and commission oral health improvement interventions. Two national documents were
published in June 2014 which aimed to support local authorities in these activities.6,7
Introduction
As part of Public Health England’s Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme
(DPHEP), standard examinations of a random sample of five-year-old children were
undertaken in the academic year 2014 to 2015. This was the third national dental
survey of this age group to take place under positive consent for participation.
iv
Since 1985, standardised and coordinated surveys of child dental health have been
conducted across the United Kingdom (UK). These have produced robust, comparable
information for use at regional and local government level and for varying health
geographies. The first national survey of five-year-olds took place in 1992. PHE now
has responsibility for coordinating these surveys in England as part of an annual
programme. The PHE dental public health epidemiology team facilitated the survey and
worked with the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) who
ensured standardisation of examiners. Each local authority commissioned local dental
providers to undertake the fieldwork according to a national protocol.
8
NHS and local authority commissioners and other health planners use the information
produced from the surveys when conducting oral health needs assessments at a local
level. These form an important component of the commissioning cycle when planning
and evaluating local services and health improvement interventions. The data is also
required to provide the dental indicator (proportion of children aged five who are free
from obvious tooth decay)1 for the Public Health Outcomes Framework, which is used to
monitor health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities at national and local
levels.
The survey reported here involved children from mainstream, state-funded schools.
Information concerning the oral health of five- and twelve- year-old children attending
special support schools was the focus of a previous PHE DPHEP survey and was
reported in September 2015.
9
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
6
Section 1. Method
The sampling frame for this survey was children attending mainstream schools who
were aged five years at the time of the survey. It was undertaken during the 2014/15
school year. Data was collected by trained and calibrated examiners who were
generally employed by NHS trusts providing community dental services. Pine et al.10
described the methods whereby examiners should be trained and calibrated and these
standards were applied, along with BASCD standards for sampling and clinical
examination11,12 as in previous surveys. A visual-only examination method was used
and informed the standard severity index for teeth with experience of dental decay;
missing teeth due to decay (mt), filled teeth due to decay (ft) and teeth with visually
obvious decay into dentine, which was the threshold for recording the presence of
decay and is indicated by the subscript ‘3’ (d3t). This threshold is widely accepted in the
literature as a standard but that it provides an underestimate of the true prevalence and
severity of disease. The presence and absence of plaque and oral sepsis were also
recorded.
The primary sampling unit was lower-tier local authorities. Samples were drawn for each
local authority in England using the same methods and similar sampling intensities used
in previous surveys and according to the survey protocol. 8 In some local authority areas
larger samples were drawn at the request of commissioners to facilitate analysis at
smaller geographical levels.
Sampled schools were contacted to seek co-operation and age-eligible children were
identified. In larger schools random samples of children were taken. Requests for
consent for sampled children were sent to parents and followed by a second request
where no response was made to the first.
Data was collected using the Dental Survey Plus 2 computer program or using a tailor
made data collection format in Microsoft Access. Electronic files of the raw, anonymised
data were uploaded to a secure folder on a shared network drive by regional dental
epidemiology coordinators (DECs). The DPH intelligence team collated, checked and
cleaned the data then linked it using home postcodes so that lower super output areas
and IMD scores could be assigned.
Population weightingv was used to calculate estimates of a range of measures of oral
health for each local authority. The postcode of residence for each record was used to

v The sampling methodology used for this survey was school based and therefore not truly representative of the population of
five-year-old children by Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile. Thus, the sample was treated as a stratified random
sample, that is, children were selected randomly from each IMD quintile but the sampling probability varied between IMD
quintiles. For this reason, IMD-weighted estimates were produced to provide more robust estimates of overall prevalence.
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
7
assign a deprivation score which had been adjusted for 2015.13 Deprivation scores were
then used to allow weighting of the sample data to more closely match the actual
distribution of deprivation quintilesvi in the source population.
Error bars indicate 95% confidence limits on charts in this report and in the tables
available from www.nwph.net/dentalhealth
Data suppression was applied when there were insufficient children examined in a
group to allow production of a reliable estimate.
Section 2. Results
Headline results are presented here along with an indication of the range of measures
and some high-level illustrations. Full tables and charts of results at national,
government region, lower- and upper-tier local authorities and for PHE centres are
available from www.nwph.net/dentalhealth
Participation in the survey
In total, all 152 upper-tier local authorities took part in the survey covering 324 out of
326 lower-tier local authorities.
A small proportion of parents (4.5%) actively stated they did not want their children
included in the survey, while 0.5% of children with consent declined to take part on the
day. Absenteeism on the day of examination accounted for a loss of 3.8% of consented
children. Simple non-response to the request was the most common reason for nonconsent (28.9%), despite two requests and schools actively seeking returned forms.
From the drawn sample 63.1% of children were examined, this response varied from
57.4% in Yorkshire and The Humber to 72.5% in the South West. At lower-tier local
authority level the response rate varied from 24.9% in Waveney to 94.5% in Purbeck.
Of the children with parental consent 111,500 clinical examinations were included in the
final analysis, representing 95.7% of the main consented sample. This represented
16.5% of the population of this age cohort attending mainstream state schools.
The proportion of consented children who were examined varied at regional and lowertier local authority level. Across the regions, response varied from 94.3% in the North

vi Deprivation quintiles divide populations into fifths according to distribution of IMD scores
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
8
East to 96.4% in the South East. At lower-tier local authority level response varied from
84.9% in Daventry to 99.5% in Plymouth.
Prevalence of dental decay at age five
The proportion of five-year-old children in England who were free from visually obvious
dental decay was 75.2%. The remaining 24.7% had experience of dental decay with
one or more teeth that were decayed to dentinal level, extracted or filled because of
caries. When comparing the regions, the estimates of those with no obvious decay
ranged from 66.6% in the North West to 79.9% in the South East (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percentage of five-year-old children with no obvious decay experience
(d3mft = 0) in England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
At the upper-tier local authority level there were wider variations, ranging from
Blackburn with Darwen where 43.9% had no obvious decay to South Gloucestershire
where 85.9% were free of decay.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
South East
East of England
South West
West Midlands
England
London
East Midlands
North East
Yorkshire and The Humber
North West
percentage
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
9
Severity of dental decay at age five
The average number of teeth affected by decay (decayed, missing or filled teeth –
d3
mft) per child was 0.8. At the regional level this ranged from 0.6 in the South East to
1.3 in the North West (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Average number of dentinally decayed, missing and filled teeth (d3mft)
among five-year-old children in England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
There was also wide variation in the d3mft across upper-tier local authorities, ranging
from 0.4 in nine local authorities to 2.5 in Oldham (Figure 3).
Variation was also evident at the lower-tier local authority level and the severity of decay
was related to level of deprivation (Figure 4).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
London
North East
East Midlands
England
West Midlands
South West
East of England
South East
Average d3mft
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
10
Figure 3. Average number of dentinally decayed, missing (due to decay) and filled
teeth (d3
mft) among five-year-old children in England by upper-tier local
authorities, 2015.
Figure 4. Correlation between number of dentinally decayed, missing (due to
decay) and filled teeth (d3
mft) among five-year-old children and Index of
Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2015) score. Lower-tier local authorities in
England, 2015.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Average d3mft
England = 0.8
Lowest = 0.4
Highest = 2.5
R² = 0.4094
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average d mft 3
Index of multiple deprivation 2015
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
11
Looking at the severity of decay among only those children with decay experience,
separately from children with no obvious decay, allows us to understand more about the
extent of disease in these children. In 2015, 24.7% of the examined children had
experienced decay. Among these children, the average number of decayed, missing
(due to decay) or filled teeth was 3.4 (a child at this age normally has 20 primary teeth).
Figure 5 shows the England average and variation across the regions.
Figure 5. Average number of dentinally decayed, missing (due to decay) and filled
teeth (d3mft) among five-year-old children with any decay experience
(d3mft>0). England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
At upper-tier local authority level there is clear variation of this measure with affected
children in Wiltshire having 2.0 teeth affected on average, while those in Rochdale had
4.9 teeth affected.
The number of currently decayed teeth at age five
The major component of the d3
mft index in this age group is obvious, untreated dentinal
decay (d3
t) (Figure 6). On average, five-year-old children in England had 0.7 teeth
decayed into dentine. At the regional level the average number of currently decayed
teeth ranged from 0.5 in the South East, South West and East of England to 1.0 in the
North West with wide variation between upper tier local authorities, ranging from 0.2 in
Brighton and Hove to 2.2 in Oldham.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
North West
London
Yorkshire and The Humber
North East
England
East Midlands
East of England
South East
West Midlands
South West
Average d3mft (d3mft > 0 )
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
12
Figure 6. Components of d3mft among five-year-old children in England by
region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
The care index
The care index gives an indication of the restorative activity of dentists in each area. It is
the percentage of teeth with decay experience that have been treated by filling
(ft/d3mft). Opinions differ regarding the appropriateness and benefit of filling decayed
primary teeth and there is a lack of definitive evidence-based guidance on this. Care
should be taken in making assumptions about the extent or the quality of clinical care
available when using this index. Other intelligence such as levels of deprivation, disease
prevalence and the provision of dental services should be taken into account when
trying to interpret the implications of high or low scores.
The proportion of decayed teeth that were filled was 12.0% across England as a whole.
This varied between regions from 7.8% in the North West to 14.4% in London (Figure
7), and between upper tier local authorities from 0.3% in Stoke-on-Trent to 24.7% in
York. Within regions there was also considerable variation, for example, in Yorkshire
and The Humber the index varied from 4.8% in Wakefield to 24.7% in York.  Using the best online teeth straighteners did not help reduce teeth decay either, and should only be used if your dentist recommends it.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
London
North East
East Midlands
England
West Midlands
South West
East of England
South East
Average d3mft
Region
England
Mean d3
t
Mean mt
Mean ft
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
13
Figure 7. Care index among five-year-old children in England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
Prevalence of children with extracted teeth (due to dental decay) at age five
Extraction of teeth in young children often involves admission to hospital and a general
anaesthetic. This might have occurred at any age prior to the survey, from 18 months
onwards. The proportion of five-year-old children with experience of extraction (those
with an mt score of one or more) across England was 2.5%. At regional level this
ranged from 1.9% to 3.7% (Figure 8). For local authorities this also varied from 0.3% in
Solihull in the West Midlands to 7.9% in Middlesbrough in the North East.
Figure 8. Percentage of five-year-old children with one or more teeth extracted
due to dental decay (mt > 0) in England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
London
South East
South West
East of England
England
East Midlands
North East
Yorkshire and The Humber
West Midlands
North West
Percentage
Region
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Yorkshire and The Humber
North East
North West
London
England
South West
East of England
West Midlands
South East
East Midlands
Percentage
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
14
Children with sepsis at the time of the examination
At the age of five-years, nearly all sepsis will be the result of the dental decay process
rather than originating from gum problems. A small number of cases will be linked to
traumatic injury of teeth, but no diagnosis is recorded during this survey. Sepsis was
simply defined in the protocol as the presence of a dental abscess or sinus recorded by
visual examination of the soft tissues. Sepsis was recorded for 1.4% of volunteers. As
expected, the level was generally higher in those areas where there were higher levels
of decay. For example, the highest levels occurred in the North West (2.3%) and the
lowest in the South East (0.8%) (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Percentage of five-year-old children with evidence of sepsis in England
by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
Children with substantial amounts of plaque at the time of the examination
The presence of substantial amounts of plaque compared with ‘visible’ or no plaque
provides a proxy measure of children who do not brush their teeth or brush them rarely.
Such children cannot benefit from the protective effects of fluoride in toothpaste on
dental decay. ‘Substantial amount of plaque’ was recorded for 1.7% of volunteers,
ranging from 0.5% in the West Midlands to 4.2% in the East of England (Figure 10).
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
North West
North East
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
England
London
West Midlands
East of England
South West
South East
% with sepsis
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
15
Figure 10: Percentage of five-year-old children with substantial amounts of
plaque in England by region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
Dental decay affecting incisors
For the first time the data from this survey of five-year-olds was used to assess which
children had dental decay affecting one or more of their incisor (front) teeth. This
measure is useful as it indicates where children have been affected by a particular type
of caries. This is an aggressive form of decay that affects upper incisors and can be
rapid and extensive in attack. It is associated with long term bottle use with sugarsweetened drinks, especially when these are given overnight or for long periods of the
day.
Overall the prevalence of incisor decay was 5.6% (Figure 11) and varied by region,
ranging from 3.6% in the South East to 8.5% in the North West. Comparison at lowertier local authority level shows far wider variation with a prevalence of 0.3% for Maldon
and 20.8% in Oldham. Within some local authorities there is likely to be marked
geographic variation as this type of decay is closely linked with specific health
behaviours which are influenced by local cultural norms. Children with incisor decay are
likely to have more teeth affected than is the case for general decay, so tackling this
problem may lead to relatively higher benefits.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
East of England
North East
East Midlands
London
England
South West
Yorkshire and The Humber
South East
North West
West Midlands
% with substantial amount of plaque
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
16
Figure 11. Percentage of five-year-old children with incisor caries in England by
region, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
Comparisons by ethnic background
In previous surveys the recording of ethnic group has been optional for fieldwork teams
and tended to be done in areas where there were smaller proportions of white British
children. The collection of ethnicity data was made compulsory in the 2015 survey and
has resulted in 97.0% of the volunteers being allocated an ethnicity code. The
information source for this was from school records which used parents’ reporting of
family ethnic group when their child started at school. The ethnicity code set used for
school census returns reflects categories used in the 2001 national population census,
with additional categories for Travellers of Irish heritage, Sri Lankan other and pupils of
Gypsy/Roma heritage.
Table 1 summarises four measures calculated for six specific ethnic codes and a group
‘other’ which drew together all those whose ethnic classification did not fit with the other
six. Five-year-old children from Chinese and from Eastern European backgrounds had
higher prevalence, severity and extent of dental decay than other ethnic groups.
The proportion of children with no obvious decay was significantly lower in the Chinese
(48.7%) and Eastern European (52.4%) ethnic groups than for the remaining groups,
which ranged from 55.4% to 78.6%. The mean d3mft scores among the Chinese (2.5)
and Eastern European (2.2) groups were more than three times higher than the white
children and for black/black British children (both 0.7). Among those with any obvious
decay experience the number of teeth affected in the Chinese and Eastern European
groups was 5.0 and 4.7 respectively, significantly higher than for all other groups.
0 2 4 6 8 10
North West
London
Yorkshire and The Humber
North East
East Midlands
England
West Midlands
East of England
South West
South East
% with incisor caries
Region
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
17
The proportion of children with dental decay affecting one or more incisor teeth was
highest among Chinese (24.8%), Eastern European (15.1%) and ‘other’ (16.7%) ethnic
groups. These proportions compare with 3.9% of the white children, 6.1% of black/black
British and 12.5% of those from an Asian background.
Further analysis of the data is required, including controlling for deprivation. Figures 12
and 13 show prevalence and severity scores for each ethnic group.
Table 1. Several measures of dental caries found in five-year-old children from
different ethnic backgrounds.
Ethnic group Sample
size (n)
Proportion of
children with
no obvious
caries
experience
Mean d3mft Mean d3mft of
those with
caries
experience
Proportion with
incisor decay of
whole sample
White 82,162 78.1
(77.77 – 78.34)
0.7
(0.68 – 0.70)
3.1
(3.11 – 3.19)
3.9
(3.75 – 4.01)
Mixed 5,164 75.2
(74.04 – 76.39)
0.8
(0.75 – 0.86)
3.3
(3.14 – 3.42)
5.8
(5.17 – 6.45)
Asian/Asian
British 12,011 63.3
(62.45 – 64.17)
1.5
(1.41 – 1.50)
4.0
(3.91 – 4.09)
12.5
(11.95 – 13.13)
Black/black
British 5,380 78.6
(77.51 – 79.70)
0.7
(0.65 – 0.74)
3.3
(3.14 – 3.43)
6.1
(5.42 – 6.70)
Chinese 544 48.7
(44.51 – 52.91)
2.5
(2.24 – 2.86)
5.0
(4.56 – 5.43)
24.8
(21.19 – 28.45)
Eastern
European
895 52.4
(49.13 – 55.67)
2.2
(1.99 – 2.42)
4.7
(4.35 – 4.98)
15.1
(12.74 – 17.43)
Other ethnic
background 2,015 55.4
(53.21 – 57.56)
1.9
(1.74 – 1.99)
4.2
(4.01 – 4.41)
16.7
(15.05 – 18.30)
Not provided 3,329 72.1
(70.54 – 73.59)
1.0
(0.89 – 1.03)
3.4
(3.27 – 3.63)
6.5
(5.71 – 7.39)
Total 111,500 75.2
(74.95 – 75.45)
0.8
(0.83 – 0.85)
3.4
(3.37 – 3.43)
5.6
(5.46 – 5.73)
95% lower and upper confidence limits are shown in brackets
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
18
Figure 12. Percentage of five-year-old children with no obvious decay experience
(d3mft = 0) in England by ethnic group, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
Figure 13. Average number of dentinally decayed, missing (due to decay) and
filled teeth (d3mft) among five-year-old children in England by ethnic
group, 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Black / Black
British
White Mixed Ethnic group
not provided
Asian / Asian
British
Other ethnic
background
Eastern
European
Chinese
% d mft = 0 3
Ethnic group
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
White Black / Black
British
Mixed Ethnic group
not provided
Asian / Asian
British
Other ethnic
background
Eastern
European
Chinese
Average d mft 3
Ethnic group
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
19
Comparisons with other surveys over time
In the first period of these national surveys, from 1992 to 2006, parents were given the
choice to opt out of the surveys and if they did not do so, children were automatically
included (known as negative consent). This method changed in 2008 when parents
were required to give written, positive consent for their child to be included in the
surveys, that is they must ‘opt in’. This change introduced a response bias which is
unquantifiable and means that direct comparison cannot be made between surveys in
2008, 2012 and 2015 with those conducted between 1992 and 2006.
19
The same methods regarding consent and application of weighting were used in the
2008 and 2012 surveys and the one reported here. Direct comparison of the results of
these surveys is therefore valid. Similar response rates were found in all three: 66.8% in
2008, 65.2% in 2012 and 66.5% in 2015. It is likely that non-response bias applies in all
three surveys and reference should be made to the response levels when making
comparisons, particularly when the sample sizes are small and response levels are low.
Comparing results across the three surveys from 2008 to 201514,15 reveals a clear trend
of significant improvement in decay levels, with reductions in the estimates of both the
severity and prevalence of dental decay across the years. The proportion of children in
England with no experience of obvious decay increased from 69.1% in 2008 to 72.1% in
2012 and 75.2% in 2015 (Figure 14). This represents an increase of six percentage
points and a percentage change of 8.8% since 2008. An improvement was reported for
all regions and this was significant for most. Figure 15 shows a reduction in mean d3mft
from 1.1 in 2008 to 0.9 in 2012 to 0.8 in 2015, an overall reduction of 27.3% since 2008.
The reduction in severity was recorded for all regions, some significantly so, but not in
all local authorities.
Figure 14. Percentage of five-year-old children with no decay experience in
England by region, 2008, 2012 and 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
East
Midlands
East of
England London North East North West South East South West West
Midlands
Yorkshire
and the
Humber
England
2008 69.2 75.2 67.3 60.2 61.9 73.8 69.4 71.1 61.3 69.1
2012 70.2 77.0 67.1 70.3 65.2 78.8 73.9 74.0 66.4 72.1
2015 72.5 79.7 72.6 72.0 66.6 79.9 78.5 76.6 71.5 75.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% d mft = 0 3
England
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
20
Figure 15. Average number of dentinally decayed, missing (due to decay) and
filled teeth (d3
mft) among five-year-old children in England by region,
2008, 2012 and 2015.
Error bars represent 95% confidence limits
A change of this magnitude is statistically significant and warrants close inspection to
determine the most likely causes.
While the absolute levels of decay are not comparable across the full timeline of these
surveys (for the reasons highlighted above), the general trends still give an indication of
what has been happening over time. Figure 16 shows there was little change in either
the prevalence or severity of dental decay in this population between 1998 and 2006.
Because of the methodology change introduced for the 2008 survey, it is not possible to
determine if any of the change between 2006 and 2008 was due to an actual change in
disease levels. However, the surveys carried out using positive consent show a
significant reduction in prevalence and severity between 2008 and 2015, as described
above. The chart shows the series of child dental health surveys commissioned by the
Health and Social Care Information Centre, which used a slightly different method but
also introduced positive consent for the 2013 survey. The same pattern of stability
between 1980 and 2003 is seen, followed by a marked reduction in the 2013 survey.20
East
Midlands
East of
England London North East North
West South East South
West
West
Midlands
Yorkshire
and the
Humber
England
2008 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.1
2012 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.9
2015 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Average d mft 3
England
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
21
Figure 16. Results of dental surveys of five-year-olds in England from National
Child Dental Health surveys and PHE Dental Public Health
Epidemiology Programme surveys, 1973 to 2015.
Comparison of inequalities over time
Over many years and in most dental epidemiological surveys in the UK the relationship
between deprivation and dental decay levels has been illustrated. Decay levels are higher
in local authorities where deprivation scores are higher. Figure 4 shows the strength of the
correlation between the estimates of mean decay severity (d3mft) and Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD 2015) scores for lower-tier local authorities in England.
The same correlations have been carried out for the results from the 2008, 2012 and
current survey and are shown in Figure 17. The slope of the lines for each survey and
the correlation coefficients appear to remain similar over time. This suggests that while
dental decay levels are reducing, the inequalities gap remains the same.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2012 2015
% d mft > 0 3
Average d mft 3
Average d3mft
Percentage with decay experience
Levels measured using positive Consent
CDH Surveys DPHEP Surveys
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
22
R² = 0.4685
R² = 0.4483
R² = 0.4094
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Average d mft 3
Index of multiple deprivation score
Avg dmft 2008
Avg dmft 2012
Avg dmft 2015
Linear (Avg dmft 2008)
Linear (Avg dmft 2012)
Linear (Avg dmft 2015)
Figure 17. Correlation between numbers of dentinally decayed, missing (due to
decay) and filled teeth (d3
mft) among five-year-old children and Index
of Multiple Deprivation score. Lower-tier local authorities in England,
2008 (IMD 2007), 2012 (IMD 2010) and 2015 (IMD 2015).
Section 3. Implications of results
Variations in health
It is clear that wide variations in the levels of dental decay experienced by five-year-old
children living in different parts of the country and in different life circumstances still
exist. Frequent exposure of teeth to free sugars, most commonly through eating and
drinking sugary snacks and drinks, is the cause of decay.
16 Free sugars are also
contributory factors to other issues of public health concern in children, for example,
childhood obesity and development of Type II diabetes later in life. There is a clear
correlation at lower-tier local authority level between the index of multiple deprivation
and decay levels. A similar pattern is also seen in the National Child Measurement
Programme,
17 with the highest levels of unhealthy weight tending to be found in the
most deprived areas. It is not surprising that both surveys show a common association
as the factors that lead to dental decay and obesity are similar, however, the nature of
the relationship between dental decay levels and childhood obesity has not yet been
clearly established.
18 It should also be noted that deprivation alone cannot explain the
variations in the dental survey data and factors such as location and ethnicity also have
considerable effect over and above that for deprivation.
Avg d3
mft 2012
Avg d3
mft 2015
Linear (Avg d3
mft 2008)
Linear (Avg d3
mft 2012)
Linear (Avg d3
mft 2015)
Avg d3
mft 2008
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
23
Changes in levels of dental decay over time
The use of standardised BASCD criteria and a prescribed training and calibration
process ensures the ability to look at trend data over time. This is the third survey to be
carried out following some methodological changes, including the requirement to seek
positive, written consent, introduced from 2007 and it provides a third data point which
confirms a trend for lower levels of decay in this age group.
An increase of 9% in the proportion of children with no obvious decay between 2008
and 2015 is matched by a 20% decrease in the proportion that had any experience of
obvious decay. During the same time period the mean severity has reduced by 28%
from 1.11 d3mft to 0.8 d3mft. This notable improvement in decay levels has followed
several decades of stability following the marked improvements related to the
introduction of fluoridated toothpaste in the 1970s.
21 Similar trends have been noted
from the 1980s to 2015 in Scotland 2 and Wales.
3
Now that a clear trend has been observed, further detailed analysis is required to
determine the impact of a range of possible factors, such as:
• the magnitude of the change in dental decay levels is similar to that found in trials
that distributed toothpaste at 1,450ppm fluoride to children up to five-years-old,
displacing the use of traditionally low-fluoride children’s toothpaste.
22 Following
recommendations in the 2007 report Delivering better oral health; an evidence
based toolkit for prevention23 several toothpaste manufacturers re-formulated
their children’s brands. Fluoride levels were increased from very low levels, such
as 250ppm or 440ppm, up to at least 1,000ppm. Only a few small brands stayed
at levels less likely to prevent decay. It is possible that this increased use of
higher concentration fluoride toothpaste has had the effect of controlling the
development of decay and causing a real reduction in measured disease levels.
More recent editions of the toolkit have supported this recommendation and
tracked the reduction in the number of brands with low fluoride levels23
• the increasing focus on prevention in general dental practice may also have had
an influence. Evidence from the Health and Social Care Information Centre
(HSCIC) shows an almost seven-fold increase in dentists’ prescriptions for
fluoride-based products between 2007 and 2014,24 and a continuing increase in
the application of fluoride varnish for children25
• wide dissemination of the messages about twice daily brushing and spitting out
after brushing instead of rinsing may well have reached sufficiently large
proportions of the population to have had an effect. Simply adopting these
behaviours, along with higher concentration fluoride toothpaste could have been
sufficient to reduce caries levels in five-year-olds
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
24
• in limited parts of the country, oral health improvement programmes have been
established during the lifetime of these five-year-old children. If these have had
sufficient intensity, coverage, penetration and length of time to run it is possible
that these interventions may have had an impact on the dental health of the
recipient populations. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE) is currently evaluating the evidence
Other possible factors may also explain this apparent reduction and no clear conclusion
should be drawn until these have been investigated.
Putting this information to use
Data from this survey will be used to produce the dental indicator (4.2 tooth decay in
children aged five) in the Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF).1 In previous
reports the prevalence of children with experience of decay has been shown but for this
survey a change has been made to report the proportion of children who are free of
obvious decay and this aligns with the PHOF indicator.
Locally these data are used as important contributions to Joint Strategic Needs
Assessments. This is because improvements in dental decay levels can give early
indication of the success, or otherwise, of interventions aimed at very young children
such as those designed to improve parenting, children’s weight or overall health or diet.
Such interventions may need many years to pass before the impact can be measured.
Dental decay levels can be used as early proxy measures of the impact of programmes
focussed on weaning and feeding practices or improving parenting skills.
Reliable data on dental decay levels can assist with planning and commissioning dental
health improvement programmes, which are the responsibility of local authorities. These
should be commissioned following strategic planning, taking into account the measured
health needs of the population. Guidance is available from PHE6 and NICE7 about
commissioning oral health improvement programmes and there is good evidence that,
in addition to place-based generic health improvement activities, which will address
some of the common risk factors for dental decay, strategies to increase the exposure
to fluoride are effective.
Use of the data at a lower level than local authority boundaries can help to show where
inequalities lie within a local authority and therefore where targeted interventions are
required. The introduction of a measure showing children with incisor caries will indicate
where interventions are required to tackle this specific problem which is related to long
term use of a baby bottle and sugared drinks.
For the first time, data is available to indicate which ethnic groups are at higher risk of
decay. The country level estimates can be used locally to inform planners about
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
25
tailoring interventions for specific groups in the population according to their cultural
needs.
Local authorities may seek dental public health advice from PHE with regard to
commissioning additional surveys using this method. This would allow them to evaluate
their interventions and to investigate specific population groups.
Section 4. References
1. Department of Health. Public Health Outcomes Framework 2013 to 2016 [Internet].
Last updated December 2015 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/healthy-lives-healthy-people-improvingoutcomes-and-supporting-transparency
2. National Dental Inspection Programme (NDIP) 2014. Report of the 2014 Detailed
National Dental Inspection Programme of Primary 1 children and the Basic
Inspection of Primary 1 and Primary 7 children. Available from:
http://ndip.scottishdental.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-28-NDIPReport.pdf
3. Picture of oral health 2016. Dental epidemiological survey of 5 year olds 2014/15.
Welsh oral health information unit, Cardiff University. Available from:
www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/218589/Picture-of-Oral-Health2016.pdf
4. The Stationery Office. Health & Social Care Act 2012 [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2016 Feb
9]. Available from: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/enacted
5. Secretary of State. Statutory Instrument No 3094. National Health Service, England
Social Care Fund, England Public Health, England. The NHS Bodies and Local
Authorities (Partnership Arrangements, Care Trusts, Public Health and Local
Healthwatch) Regulations 2012 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3094/part/4/made
6. Public Health England. Local authorities improving oral health: commissioning better
oral health for children and young people. An evidence-informed toolkit for local
authorities [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-oral-health-an-evidence-informedtoolkit-for-local-authorities
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
26
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Oral health: approaches for local
authorities and their partners to improve the oral health of their communities
[Internet]. NICE guidelines [PH55] 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph55
8. Dental public health epidemiology programme. Oral health survey of five-year-old
children 2014-15 National protocol Version 2 Public Health England 2014. Gateway
ref: 201416. Available from:
www.nwph.net/dentalhealth/survey-results%205(14_15).aspx
9. Public Health England. Oral health survey of five-year-old and 12-year-old children
attending special support schools 2014. A report on the prevalence and severity of
dental decay [Internet]. Dental public health epidemiology programme 2015 [cited
2016 Feb 9]. Available from: www.nwph.net/dentalhealth
10. Pine CM, Pitts NB, Nugent ZJ. British Association for the Study of Community
Dentistry (BASCD) guidance on the statistical aspects of training and calibration of
examiners for surveys of child dental health. A BASCD co-ordinated dental
epidemiology programme quality standard. Community Dental Health. 1997a 14
(Supplement 1):18-29.
11. Pitts NB, Evans DJ, Pine CM. British Association for the Study of Community
Dentistry (BASCD) diagnostic criteria for caries prevalence surveys – 1996/97.
Community Dental Health. 1997 14 (Supplement 1): 6-9.
12. Pine CM, Pitts NB, Nugent ZJ. British Association for the Study of Community
Dentistry (BASCD) guidance on sampling for surveys of child dental health. A
BASCD coordinated dental epidemiology programme quality standard. Community
Dental Health.1997b 14 (Supplement 1):10-17.
13. Office for National Statistics. Ward population estimates, mid – 2011(Census based)
[Internet]. Statistical bulletin, 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_311891.pdf
14. Davies G.M., Jones C.M., Monaghan N., Morgan M.Z., Pine C.M., Pitts N.B., Neville
J.S. and Rooney E. (2011): The caries experience of 5 year-old children in
Scotland, Wales and England in 2007-2008 and the impact of consent
arrangements. Reports of Co-ordinated surveys using BASCD criteria. Community
Dental Health 28, 5-11.
15. Public Health England. Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2012. A report on
the prevalence and severity of dental decay [Internet]. National dental epidemiology
programme, 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from: www.nwph.net/dentalhealth
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
27
16. Carbohydrates and Health Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition 2015. The
stationery office, London. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report
17. National Child Measurement Programme: England, 2014/15 school year. 2015.
Health and Social Care Information Centre. Available from:
www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB19109/nati-chil-meas-prog-eng-2014-2015-rep.pdf

18. The relationship between dental caries and obesity in children: an evidence
summary 2015. Public Health England. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466334/Cari
es_obesity_Evidence_SummaryOCT2015FINAL.pdf
19. Davies G.M., Robinson R., Neville J. and Burnside G. (2014): Investigation of bias
related to non-return of consent for a dental epidemiological survey of caries among
five year olds. Community Dental Health 31, 21-26
20. Health and Social Care Information Centre. Child Dental Health Survey 2013,
England, Wales and Northern Ireland [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available
from: www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB17137
21. Anderson RJ, Bradnock G, Beal JF, James PMC. (1982) Reduction of dental caries
prevalence in English Schoolchildren. J Dent Res 6:1311-6.
22. Davies, G.M., Worthington, H.V., Ellwood, R.P., Blinkhorn, A.S., Taylor, G.O. and
Davies, R.M. (2002). A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of providing
free fluoride toothpaste during pre-school years on reducing caries in 5-6 year old
children. Community Dental Health 19: 131-136.
23. Public Health England. Delivering better oral health: an evidence based toolkit for
prevention [Internet]. Third edition, 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 9]. Available from:
www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-better-oral-health-an-evidencebased-toolkit-for-prevention
24. Prescribing by Dentists England, 2014. Health and Social Care Information Centre.
Available from:
www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB17425/pres_dent_eng_2014_rep.pdf
25. NHS Dental Statistics England 2014/15. Available from :
www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB18129/nhs-dent-stat-eng-14-15-repV1.1.pdf
Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015. A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay.
28
Section 5. Summarised tables
The complete sets of tables with detailed results are available from:
www.nwph.net/dentalhealth
29
Appendix 1. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, upper tier local authority (LA)
Part LA did not partake in survey
Region Upper Tier
LA Code Upper Tier LA Name
% of
sample
examined
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft > 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Country E92000001 England 63.1 0.8 0.7 75.2 24.7 3.4 5.6 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.14
E06000015 Derby 60.1 1.3 1.0 72.4 27.6 4.7 4.6 0.33 0.29 5.21 5.21 0.82 2.42
E10000007 Derbyshire 59.7 0.7 0.5 77.8 22.2 3.1 3.4 0.09 0.07 2.13 2.13 0.27 0.95
E06000016 Leicester 51.6 1.9 1.5 55.0 45.0 4.2 14.2 0.22 0.19 3.41 3.41 0.37 2.43
E10000018 Leicestershire 69.4 0.8 0.7 71.6 28.4 2.8 5.3 0.09 0.08 2.26 2.26 0.22 1.13
E10000019 Lincolnshire 74.7 0.7 0.6 76.5 23.5 3.0 3.9 0.09 0.08 2.05 2.05 0.27 0.95
E10000021 Northamptonshire 57.0 0.8 0.7 72.9 27.1 3.1 3.9 0.11 0.10 2.50 2.50 0.28 1.13
E06000018 Nottingham 64.0 1.2 1.0 64.4 35.6 3.4 9.5 0.23 0.21 4.66 4.66 0.47 2.87
E10000024 Nottinghamshire 66.9 0.6 0.5 79.0 21.0 2.9 4.4 0.08 0.07 2.11 2.11 0.28 1.06
E06000017 Rutland 81.9 0.7 0.7 71.2 28.8 2.6 6.3 0.23 0.21 6.08 6.08 0.58 3.28
E06000055 Bedford 80.6 0.9 0.7 73.1 26.9 3.5 6.1 0.14 0.12 2.89 2.89 0.35 1.58
E10000003 Cambridgeshire 67.0 0.5 0.4 83.1 16.9 3.3 4.3 0.08 0.07 1.96 1.96 0.33 1.07
E06000056 Central Bedfordshire 78.6 0.5 0.4 81.9 18.1 2.8 3.1 0.08 0.07 2.09 2.09 0.30 0.96
E10000012 Essex 61.4 0.5 0.4 83.9 16.0 3.1 2.9 0.05 0.04 1.18 1.18 0.21 0.55
E10000015 Hertfordshire 75.9 0.6 0.5 79.8 20.2 2.9 3.5 0.05 0.04 1.19 1.19 0.16 0.55
E06000032 Luton 77.7 1.7 1.2 57.4 42.6 4.0 14.7 0.29 0.24 5.10 5.10 0.49 3.64
E10000020 Norfolk 51.2 0.7 0.6 81.7 18.3 3.8 2.7 0.09 0.08 1.94 1.94 0.31 0.83
E06000031 Peterborough 72.9 1.1 0.9 70.0 30.0 3.8 8.1 0.27 0.24 5.40 5.40 0.57 3.38
E06000033 Southend-on-Sea 56.1 0.6 0.5 82.3 17.4 3.3 3.3 0.18 0.16 4.21 4.19 0.66 1.99
E10000029 Suffolk 53.1 0.7 0.5 79.1 20.8 3.2 4.8 0.08 0.07 1.91 1.91 0.26 1.01
E06000034 Thurrock 73.0 0.6 0.5 80.5 19.5 3.1 2.8 0.19 0.18 4.81 4.81 0.64 1.97
E09000002 Barking and Dagenham 42.1 1.3 1.0 68.6 31.4 4.1 9.9 0.28 0.24 5.30 5.30 0.56 3.38
E09000003 Barnet 70.0 1.2 1.0 68.0 31.6 3.8 7.9 0.26 0.21 5.04 5.03 0.57 2.97
E09000004 Bexley 72.9 0.4 0.4 82.8 17.0 2.7 1.6 0.13 0.12 3.71 3.70 0.47 1.24
E09000005 Brent 66.6 1.3 1.0 69.2 30.8 4.2 12.1 0.22 0.19 4.18 4.18 0.47 2.99
E09000006 Bromley 86.5 0.4 0.4 84.0 16.0 2.7 5.1 0.15 0.14 4.19 4.19 0.64 2.54
E09000007 Camden 59.7 0.9 0.5 76.5 23.5 3.6 6.0 0.20 0.15 4.10 4.10 0.55 2.22
E09000008 Croydon 65.4 0.9 0.5 73.7 26.3 3.2 7.5 0.18 0.13 4.33 4.33 0.42 2.57
E09000009 Ealing 51.6 1.8 1.5 60.3 39.0 4.6 13.4 0.23 0.20 3.70 3.69 0.37 2.56
E09000010 Enfield 67.0 1.2 1.0 66.1 33.9 3.4 11.6 0.18 0.17 3.94 3.94 0.37 2.69
E09000011 Greenwich 60.6 0.8 0.6 76.1 23.9 3.2 4.3 0.20 0.17 4.71 4.71 0.57 2.14
E09000012 Hackney (including City of London) 50.5 1.0 0.7 73.4 27.0 3.6 9.3 0.12 0.10 2.41 2.41 0.31 1.57
E09000013 Hammersmith and Fulham 64.2 0.7 0.5 73.7 26.3 2.7 8.5 0.20 0.17 6.32 6.32 0.44 4.07
E09000014 Haringey 68.8 1.2 0.9 69.7 30.3 3.9 10.2 0.21 0.18 3.74 3.74 0.48 2.57
E09000015 Harrow 64.3 1.4 1.0 65.5 34.2 4.1 14.3 0.25 0.21 4.71 4.70 0.49 3.51
E09000016 Havering 49.4 0.7 0.6 80.0 20.0 3.3 3.7 0.24 0.22 5.06 5.06 0.90 2.34
E09000017 Hillingdon 69.9 1.5 1.2 62.2 37.8 3.9 16.7 0.26 0.24 4.75 4.75 0.50 3.72
E09000018 Hounslow 68.6 1.1 0.8 69.4 30.5 3.6 5.2 0.14 0.12 3.02 3.02 0.31 1.46
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
East Midlands East of England London
30
Appendix 1. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, upper tier local authority (LA)
Part LA did not partake in survey
Region Upper Tier
LA Code Upper Tier LA Name
% of
sample
examined
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft > 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
E09000019 Islington 57.5 0.9 0.5 75.6 24.4 3.5 6.7 0.16 0.11 3.45 3.45 0.45 2.01
E09000020 Kensington and Chelsea 53.1 1.1 0.8 66.6 33.4 3.3 12.2 0.28 0.25 6.11 6.11 0.60 4.34
E09000021 Kingston upon Thames 76.0 0.8 0.6 77.1 22.9 3.4 3.2 0.20 0.17 4.41 4.41 0.61 1.85
E09000022 Lambeth 47.5 0.8 0.6 77.9 22.1 3.7 5.7 0.16 0.13 3.15 3.15 0.47 1.77
E09000023 Lewisham 63.2 0.6 0.4 76.7 23.3 2.4 4.6 0.16 0.10 4.33 4.33 0.31 2.30
E09000024 Merton 70.3 0.9 0.6 73.9 26.1 3.5 6.7 0.22 0.17 4.26 4.26 0.63 2.40
E09000025 Newham 63.7 1.2 1.0 70.7 28.3 4.5 8.7 0.09 0.08 1.59 1.57 0.20 0.98
E09000026 Redbridge 53.3 1.0 0.7 76.3 23.7 4.1 9.1 0.21 0.18 4.19 4.19 0.58 2.77
E09000027 Richmond upon Thames 69.3 0.5 0.3 81.0 19.0 2.5 1.9 0.13 0.10 3.91 3.91 0.47 1.34
E09000028 Southwark 45.8 0.6 0.4 81.2 18.8 3.3 4.5 0.15 0.10 3.43 3.43 0.50 1.84
E09000029 Sutton 69.0 0.6 0.4 81.0 19.0 3.0 5.1 0.12 0.11 2.94 2.94 0.45 1.72
E09000030 Tower Hamlets 59.9 1.3 1.0 64.5 35.5 3.6 12.3 0.11 0.09 2.29 2.29 0.21 1.56
E09000031 Waltham Forest 61.3 1.1 0.8 70.2 29.8 3.5 8.5 0.22 0.19 4.51 4.51 0.50 2.76
E09000032 Wandsworth 64.3 0.8 0.6 76.8 23.2 3.6 7.9 0.19 0.16 4.04 4.04 0.55 2.55
E09000033 Westminster 65.4 1.2 0.8 64.9 35.1 3.3 13.5 0.15 0.13 3.25 3.25 0.31 2.34
E06000047 County Durham 67.3 1.1 0.9 64.9 35.1 3.0 8.4 0.25 0.22 6.13 6.13 0.46 3.65
E06000005 Darlington 59.6 1.2 0.9 64.6 35.4 3.4 9.5 0.30 0.26 5.99 5.99 0.64 3.66
E08000037 Gateshead 61.3 0.7 0.5 76.2 23.8 2.7 3.3 0.21 0.17 6.02 6.02 0.59 2.38
E06000001 Hartlepool 51.8 0.4 0.3 84.6 15.4 2.6 3.1 0.16 0.11 4.76 4.76 0.68 2.32
E06000002 Middlesbrough 50.9 1.7 1.1 61.2 38.8 4.3 10.0 0.34 0.28 5.55 5.55 0.61 3.54
E08000021 Newcastle upon Tyne 44.4 0.7 0.5 77.5 22.5 3.2 4.8 0.26 0.21 5.84 5.84 0.87 3.06
E08000022 North Tyneside 68.0 0.5 0.4 81.7 18.3 2.9 3.2 0.17 0.15 5.02 5.02 0.51 2.36
E06000057 Northumberland 65.9 0.7 0.5 74.3 25.7 2.9 3.9 0.18 0.14 4.90 4.90 0.45 2.24
E06000003 Redcar and Cleveland 54.4 1.1 0.7 72.9 27.1 4.1 8.0 0.33 0.24 5.75 5.75 0.84 3.64
E08000023 South Tyneside 58.7 0.7 0.5 74.0 26.0 2.7 1.5 0.22 0.18 6.02 6.02 0.55 1.65
E06000004 Stockton-on-Tees 55.6 0.9 0.6 74.7 25.3 3.7 6.2 0.26 0.19 5.08 5.08 0.73 2.68
E08000024 Sunderland 67.6 1.5 1.2 59.9 40.1 3.8 11.5 0.35 0.32 6.14 6.14 0.59 4.16
E06000008 Blackburn with Darwen 70.0 2.4 2.1 43.9 55.7 4.4 13.5 0.42 0.38 6.08 6.09 0.56 4.32
E06000009 Blackpool 60.3 1.8 1.4 57.5 42.5 4.3 11.8 0.43 0.36 7.28 7.28 0.68 4.87
E08000001 Bolton 68.7 1.7 1.2 59.5 40.5 4.1 13.7 0.34 0.26 6.03 6.03 0.56 4.36
E08000002 Bury 59.7 0.9 0.7 73.3 26.7 3.4 3.6 0.25 0.22 5.70 5.70 0.60 2.34
E06000049 Cheshire East 72.9 0.8 0.6 79.1 20.9 3.7 4.1 0.27 0.23 4.87 4.87 0.97 2.56
E06000050 Cheshire West and Chester 66.3 0.7 0.6 79.7 20.3 3.3 2.1 0.26 0.24 5.78 5.78 0.87 2.28
E10000006 Cumbria 72.1 1.2 1.0 67.8 32.2 3.6 7.7 0.10 0.09 2.13 2.13 0.22 1.22
E06000006 Halton 59.4 0.9 0.8 73.3 26.2 3.6 5.7 0.31 0.27 6.25 6.22 0.78 3.41
E08000011 Knowsley 45.4 1.2 0.8 67.5 32.5 3.8 6.8 0.27 0.20 5.04 5.04 0.59 2.79
E10000017 Lancashire 77.9 1.2 1.0 68.0 31.9 3.7 7.2 0.09 0.08 1.76 1.76 0.19 1.01
E08000012 Liverpool 41.3 1.4 0.9 68.2 31.8 4.3 8.3 0.27 0.23 4.90 4.90 0.56 2.68
E08000003 Manchester 62.1 1.3 1.1 67.3 32.7 4.0 12.8 0.28 0.24 5.24 5.24 0.56 3.72
North West
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
North East London
31
Appendix 1. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, upper tier local authority (LA)
Part LA did not partake in survey
Region Upper Tier
LA Code Upper Tier LA Name
% of
sample
examined
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft > 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
E08000004 Oldham 63.1 2.5 2.2 49.1 50.9 4.8 20.8 0.44 0.42 6.29 6.29 0.63 5.23
E08000005 Rochdale 86.5 2.1 1.8 56.5 43.5 4.9 16.6 0.34 0.32 5.19 5.19 0.54 3.95
E08000006 Salford 57.8 1.8 1.7 49.0 51.0 3.6 10.9 0.30 0.28 5.25 5.25 0.46 3.37
E08000014 Sefton 53.0 0.6 0.5 77.3 22.7 2.8 4.7 0.16 0.13 4.47 4.47 0.44 2.31
E08000013 St. Helens 46.7 1.1 0.8 70.3 29.7 3.7 7.5 0.36 0.30 7.08 7.08 0.85 4.37
E08000007 Stockport 64.1 0.8 0.6 78.3 21.7 3.5 5.4 0.25 0.22 5.15 5.15 0.80 2.92
E08000008 Tameside 64.2 1.2 1.0 68.6 31.4 3.7 8.8 0.24 0.22 4.94 4.94 0.52 2.61
E08000009 Trafford 82.5 0.9 0.8 73.6 26.4 3.3 6.9 0.20 0.19 4.41 4.41 0.55 2.58
E06000007 Warrington 47.0 0.9 0.8 75.5 24.5 3.5 2.8 0.51 0.47 8.01 8.01 1.57 3.47
E08000010 Wigan 57.9 1.1 0.9 67.5 32.5 3.5 5.5 0.27 0.22 5.64 5.64 0.56 2.81
E08000015 Wirral 57.1 1.2 0.8 67.1 32.9 3.5 7.2 0.30 0.25 6.55 6.55 0.61 3.51
E06000036 Bracknell Forest 63.5 0.8 0.6 77.9 22.1 3.5 5.6 0.24 0.23 4.91 4.91 0.80 2.76
E06000043 Brighton and Hove 54.1 0.4 0.2 82.4 16.2 2.3 1.3 0.17 0.10 5.83 5.22 0.67 1.51
E10000002 Buckinghamshire 73.8 0.7 0.6 76.5 23.4 3.0 3.3 0.11 0.10 2.47 2.47 0.34 1.09
E10000011 East Sussex 57.7 0.5 0.4 79.7 20.3 2.5 3.4 0.13 0.10 3.75 3.75 0.41 1.68
E10000014 Hampshire 51.2 0.5 0.3 85.0 15.0 3.0 2.5 0.06 0.05 1.46 1.46 0.26 0.64
E06000046 Isle of Wight 75.4 0.8 0.6 73.6 26.4 3.1 3.1 0.17 0.14 3.88 3.88 0.45 1.52
E10000016 Kent 69.4 0.5 0.4 83.4 16.2 3.3 1.9 0.06 0.05 1.31 1.30 0.22 0.49
E06000035 Medway 68.5 0.7 0.6 81.3 18.4 3.7 3.1 0.22 0.19 4.43 4.38 0.66 1.97
E06000042 Milton Keynes 61.1 0.6 0.5 78.3 21.5 3.0 4.7 0.07 0.06 1.69 1.68 0.22 0.88
E10000025 Oxfordshire 69.6 0.8 0.6 77.3 22.7 3.3 4.8 0.10 0.08 2.19 2.19 0.27 1.15
E06000044 Portsmouth 78.3 0.6 0.3 81.9 18.1 3.2 2.3 0.10 0.08 2.54 2.54 0.37 1.02
E06000038 Reading 67.1 0.9 0.7 71.9 28.1 3.4 7.5 0.23 0.18 5.03 5.03 0.55 3.01
E06000039 Slough 65.5 1.8 1.5 58.7 41.3 4.3 11.2 0.32 0.29 5.57 5.57 0.51 3.55
E06000045 Southampton 81.5 1.3 0.9 66.3 33.7 3.7 7.2 0.13 0.11 2.69 2.69 0.27 1.49
E10000030 Surrey (No data for Tandridge LA) 51.4 0.5 0.4 81.3 18.7 2.9 3.1 0.08 0.07 2.11 2.11 0.32 0.94
E06000037 West Berkshire 63.2 0.7 0.6 76.9 23.1 3.2 3.3 0.29 0.24 6.03 6.03 0.86 3.10
E10000032 West Sussex (No data for Adur LA) 61.0 0.4 0.4 82.0 17.5 2.6 3.7 0.15 0.13 3.27 3.24 0.63 1.67
E06000040 Windsor and Maidenhead 67.5 0.6 0.5 81.5 18.5 3.4 5.5 0.21 0.20 4.66 4.66 0.75 2.80
E06000041 Wokingham 65.3 0.6 0.4 85.2 14.8 3.8 4.6 0.25 0.20 4.45 4.45 1.21 2.64
E06000022 Bath and North East Somerset 65.7 0.4 0.3 85.0 15.0 2.5 3.5 0.16 0.12 4.47 4.47 0.71 2.25
E06000028 Bournemouth 81.0 0.9 0.6 71.8 28.2 3.3 4.7 0.23 0.18 5.33 5.33 0.56 2.45
E06000023 Bristol, City of 59.9 1.1 0.7 71.1 28.9 3.9 6.1 0.28 0.23 5.39 5.39 0.67 2.97
E06000052 Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly) 70.7 0.7 0.5 78.3 21.7 3.2 5.1 0.13 0.11 2.95 2.95 0.38 1.61
E10000008 Devon 80.0 0.6 0.4 80.4 19.6 2.9 4.0 0.06 0.05 1.62 1.62 0.20 0.80
E10000009 Dorset 76.3 0.6 0.5 75.2 24.8 2.5 3.6 0.11 0.09 3.36 3.36 0.28 1.48
E10000013 Gloucestershire 71.7 0.7 0.5 79.9 20.1 3.4 4.3 0.10 0.08 2.11 2.11 0.31 1.10
E06000024 North Somerset 62.7 0.6 0.4 81.9 18.1 3.1 2.0 0.19 0.17 4.74 4.74 0.66 1.55
E06000026 Plymouth 48.3 0.4 0.4 84.7 15.3 2.8 1.8 0.14 0.13 3.74 3.74 0.57 1.36
South East South West North West
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
32
Appendix 1. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, upper tier local authority (LA)
Part LA did not partake in survey
Region Upper Tier
LA Code Upper Tier LA Name
% of
sample
examined
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft > 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
E06000029 Poole 89.4 0.7 0.5 78.7 21.3 3.5 4.9 0.18 0.15 3.82 3.82 0.58 2.11
E10000027 Somerset 67.1 0.7 0.6 76.9 23.1 3.1 4.0 0.10 0.08 2.47 2.47 0.31 1.17
E06000025 South Gloucestershire 73.5 0.4 0.3 85.9 14.1 2.9 0.7 0.15 0.11 4.18 4.18 0.69 0.95
E06000030 Swindon 67.8 0.8 0.7 72.1 27.9 2.8 5.7 0.22 0.20 5.64 5.64 0.55 2.87
E06000027 Torbay 74.5 0.8 0.6 73.2 26.8 3.1 4.3 0.22 0.17 5.22 5.22 0.57 2.24
E06000054 Wiltshire 66.9 0.4 0.3 78.2 21.8 2.0 3.3 0.17 0.13 6.08 6.08 0.58 2.70
E08000025 Birmingham 53.9 0.8 0.5 71.3 28.7 2.9 3.7 0.21 0.14 4.90 4.90 0.52 2.13
E08000026 Coventry 79.7 1.0 0.9 71.6 28.4 3.7 11.1 0.28 0.26 5.31 5.31 0.71 3.77
E08000027 Dudley 59.1 0.5 0.4 81.5 18.5 2.5 2.3 0.06 0.06 1.88 1.88 0.24 0.74
E06000019 Herefordshire, County of 79.1 1.4 1.2 58.7 41.3 3.5 6.5 0.27 0.24 5.66 5.66 0.44 2.74
E08000028 Sandwell 62.4 0.7 0.5 76.6 23.4 2.9 4.1 0.06 0.05 1.64 1.64 0.18 0.77
E06000051 Shropshire 54.4 0.8 0.7 78.5 21.5 3.7 5.7 0.34 0.30 6.42 6.42 1.07 4.03
E08000029 Solihull 71.6 0.6 0.5 82.9 17.1 3.3 2.5 0.22 0.21 4.70 4.70 0.88 1.86
E10000028 Staffordshire 63.6 0.5 0.4 82.2 17.8 2.8 1.1 0.07 0.06 1.87 1.87 0.25 0.52
E06000021 Stoke-on-Trent 69.9 1.2 1.0 70.7 29.3 4.1 5.2 0.29 0.25 5.37 5.37 0.63 2.66
E06000020 Telford and Wrekin 47.8 0.9 0.7 77.0 23.0 3.8 8.3 0.37 0.31 6.55 6.55 1.07 4.57
E08000030 Walsall 64.3 0.7 0.5 74.8 25.2 2.7 4.1 0.07 0.06 2.06 2.06 0.20 0.94
E10000031 Warwickshire 72.7 0.8 0.7 73.7 26.3 3.1 4.2 0.11 0.10 2.48 2.48 0.31 1.13
E08000031 Wolverhampton 64.4 1.0 0.9 72.2 27.8 3.6 7.0 0.09 0.09 1.90 1.90 0.23 1.09
E10000034 Worcestershire 59.5 0.6 0.5 79.0 21.0 3.1 3.9 0.06 0.05 1.36 1.36 0.19 0.66
E08000016 Barnsley 60.4 1.1 0.8 69.8 30.2 3.5 7.3 0.11 0.08 2.19 2.19 0.24 1.26
E08000032 Bradford 48.4 1.5 1.0 62.5 37.3 4.0 9.3 0.16 0.12 2.85 2.85 0.30 1.76
E08000033 Calderdale 73.2 1.1 0.8 70.7 29.3 3.7 5.6 0.26 0.20 5.10 5.10 0.60 2.70
E08000017 Doncaster 59.5 1.1 0.7 69.0 31.0 3.6 7.8 0.29 0.22 5.84 5.84 0.67 3.41
E06000011 East Riding of Yorkshire 72.4 0.6 0.5 76.9 23.1 2.6 4.2 0.18 0.15 5.85 5.85 0.45 2.74
E06000010 Kingston upon Hull, City of 65.5 1.6 1.2 62.2 37.8 4.1 12.7 0.31 0.28 5.93 5.93 0.54 4.02
E08000034 Kirklees 62.7 1.1 0.9 71.1 28.9 3.7 7.0 0.26 0.23 5.17 5.17 0.60 3.03
E08000035 Leeds 51.6 1.1 0.9 68.6 31.4 3.5 10.3 0.13 0.11 2.59 2.59 0.28 1.75
E06000012 North East Lincolnshire 56.8 1.1 0.9 70.1 29.9 3.6 7.1 0.14 0.12 2.85 2.85 0.32 1.64
E06000013 North Lincolnshire 49.5 0.5 0.4 81.9 18.1 2.9 2.2 0.10 0.08 2.54 2.54 0.38 1.00
E10000023 North Yorkshire 65.9 0.6 0.5 79.3 20.7 3.0 3.1 0.08 0.07 1.90 1.90 0.26 0.84
E08000018 Rotherham 58.9 1.0 0.7 71.1 28.9 3.5 8.1 0.10 0.08 2.07 2.07 0.22 1.27
E08000019 Sheffield 68.0 1.1 0.8 68.6 31.4 3.5 6.3 0.23 0.20 4.35 4.35 0.54 2.39
E08000036 Wakefield 29.1 1.6 1.3 63.5 36.5 4.5 12.6 0.44 0.36 6.87 6.87 0.85 4.87
E06000014 York 57.5 0.5 0.4 83.6 16.4 3.3 4.7 0.23 0.19 4.92 4.92 0.93 2.92
Yorkshire and the Humber South West
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
West Midlands
33
Appendix 1. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, upper tier local authority (LA)
Part LA did not partake in survey
Region Upper Tier
LA Code Upper Tier LA Name
% of
sample
examined
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft > 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
E12000004 East Midlands 64.1 0.9 0.7 72.5 27.5 3.3 5.6 0.04 0.04 0.93 0.93 0.11 0.49
E12000006 East of England 65.5 0.7 0.5 79.7 20.2 3.2 4.1 0.03 0.02 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.31
E12000007 London 61.1 1.0 0.8 72.6 27.2 3.7 8.2 0.03 0.03 0.63 0.63 0.08 0.38
E12000001 North East 58.0 1.0 0.7 72.0 28.0 3.4 6.2 0.08 0.06 1.63 1.63 0.19 0.89
E12000002 North West 65.1 1.3 1.0 66.6 33.4 3.8 8.5 0.05 0.04 0.92 0.92 0.10 0.56
E12000008 South East 63.0 0.6 0.5 79.9 20.0 3.2 3.6 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.59 0.08 0.27
E12000009 South West 72.5 0.7 0.5 78.5 21.5 3.1 4.0 0.04 0.03 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.41
E12000005 West Midlands 62.5 0.7 0.6 76.6 23.4 3.1 4.2 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.65 0.08 0.32
E12000003 Yorkshire and The Humber 57.4 1.0 0.8 71.5 28.5 3.6 7.0 0.04 0.03 0.81 0.81 0.10 0.48
Country E92000001 England 63.1 0.8 0.7 75.2 24.7 3.4 5.6 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.14
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
Region
34
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
Country E92000001 England 63.1 0.8 0.7 75.2 24.7 3.4 5.6 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.14
E07000032 Amber Valley 52.4 0.8 0.7 74.2 25.8 3.2 5.4 0.28 0.27 6.52 6.52 0.77 3.21
E07000170 Ashfield 53.9 0.6 0.5 76.8 23.2 2.8 5.2 0.23 0.18 6.34 6.34 0.62 3.34
E07000171 Bassetlaw 68.6 0.5 0.4 80.4 19.6 2.6 4.6 0.21 0.17 5.51 5.51 0.67 2.96
E07000129 Blaby 74.0 1.1 0.9 67.1 32.9 3.2 6.6 0.27 0.24 5.36 5.36 0.63 2.87
E07000033 Bolsover 63.3 1.0 0.6 66.4 33.6 3.0 6.6 0.33 0.23 7.35 7.35 0.67 3.90
E07000136 Boston 73.8 1.3 1.0 67.7 32.3 3.9 6.9 0.30 0.26 5.84 5.84 0.61 3.25
E07000172 Broxtowe 69.3 0.5 0.5 77.3 22.7 2.2 1.7 0.21 0.21 6.23 6.23 0.70 1.97
E07000130 Charnwood 55.1 0.9 0.8 67.2 32.8 2.9 5.4 0.24 0.20 6.54 6.54 0.48 3.04
E07000034 Chesterfield 57.1 1.0 0.7 76.2 23.8 4.0 5.3 0.31 0.27 6.01 6.01 0.87 3.19
E07000150 Corby 46.0 1.0 0.9 67.0 33.0 3.1 4.7 0.29 0.27 7.85 7.85 0.48 3.62
E07000151 Daventry 49.8 0.8 0.7 70.0 30.0 2.5 1.7 0.25 0.21 7.19 7.19 0.57 1.83
E06000015 Derby 60.1 1.3 1.0 72.4 27.6 4.7 4.6 0.33 0.29 5.21 5.21 0.82 2.42
E07000035 Derbyshire Dales 79.7 0.3 0.2 90.5 9.5 2.8 0.5 0.15 0.11 4.68 4.68 0.66 0.94
E07000137 East Lindsey 77.1 0.6 0.5 79.8 20.2 3.0 3.7 0.23 0.21 5.46 5.46 0.75 2.59
E07000152 East Northamptonshire 64.0 0.8 0.6 75.8 24.2 3.1 3.6 0.26 0.21 5.73 5.73 0.71 2.55
E07000036 Erewash 56.7 0.6 0.5 81.1 18.9 3.4 4.1 0.28 0.24 5.73 5.73 1.04 2.98
E07000173 Gedling 69.8 0.7 0.5 77.1 22.9 3.1 5.1 0.25 0.20 5.76 5.76 0.74 3.16
E07000131 Harborough 79.6 0.5 0.4 77.3 22.7 2.2 3.7 0.15 0.13 5.34 5.34 0.42 2.25
E07000037 High Peak 61.4 0.9 0.4 66.2 33.8 2.6 2.4 0.23 0.16 6.46 6.46 0.46 2.05
E07000132 Hinckley and Bosworth 63.0 0.6 0.5 75.0 25.0 2.5 4.3 0.20 0.19 5.83 5.83 0.53 2.71
E07000153 Kettering 69.4 0.9 0.8 78.0 22.0 4.0 4.6 0.34 0.32 5.33 5.33 1.14 3.02
E06000016 Leicester 51.6 1.9 1.5 55.0 45.0 4.2 14.2 0.22 0.19 3.41 3.41 0.37 2.43
E07000138 Lincoln 73.3 0.8 0.6 76.4 23.6 3.3 4.5 0.27 0.21 5.18 5.18 0.87 2.57
E07000174 Mansfield 68.0 0.8 0.7 74.7 25.3 3.3 8.6 0.25 0.23 5.57 5.57 0.68 3.64
E07000133 Melton 69.5 0.8 0.7 69.2 30.8 2.6 5.0 0.23 0.21 6.56 6.56 0.50 3.10
E07000175 Newark and Sherwood 59.8 0.7 0.5 77.4 22.6 3.3 3.6 0.26 0.21 6.81 6.81 0.67 2.42
E07000038 North East Derbyshire 58.8 0.4 0.3 87.6 12.4 3.3 0.4 0.20 0.19 4.89 4.89 1.01 0.87
E07000139 North Kesteven 74.1 0.4 0.3 83.6 16.4 2.5 1.1 0.16 0.15 4.50 4.50 0.73 1.24
E07000134 North West Leicestershire 69.9 0.6 0.5 78.7 21.3 2.6 4.0 0.20 0.17 5.48 5.48 0.68 2.54
E07000154 Northampton 49.0 1.0 0.8 72.7 27.3 3.5 5.8 0.32 0.30 6.48 6.48 0.83 3.53
E06000018 Nottingham 64.0 1.2 1.0 64.4 35.6 3.4 9.5 0.23 0.21 4.66 4.66 0.47 2.87
E07000135 Oadby and Wigston 74.6 0.9 0.7 68.0 32.0 2.8 6.3 0.26 0.24 6.76 6.76 0.53 3.56
E07000176 Rushcliffe 76.7 0.3 0.3 86.8 13.2 2.6 1.5 0.13 0.12 4.20 4.20 0.61 1.48
E06000017 Rutland 81.9 0.7 0.7 71.2 28.8 2.6 6.3 0.23 0.21 6.08 6.08 0.58 3.28
E07000039 South Derbyshire 55.9 0.4 0.2 84.8 15.2 2.5 1.5 0.16 0.12 4.89 4.89 0.70 1.63
E07000140 South Holland 64.7 1.1 0.9 64.3 35.7 3.1 5.4 0.34 0.29 7.04 7.04 0.69 3.41
E07000141 South Kesteven 70.6 0.5 0.4 78.5 21.5 2.3 4.0 0.16 0.13 5.53 5.53 0.44 2.57
E07000155 South Northamptonshire 57.9 0.7 0.6 71.3 28.7 2.4 2.7 0.23 0.21 7.50 7.50 0.48 2.57
E07000156 Wellingborough 61.8 0.6 0.4 76.1 23.9 2.6 3.5 0.22 0.17 6.37 6.37 0.62 2.88
E07000142 West Lindsey 89.5 0.5 0.4 80.3 19.7 2.4 2.8 0.20 0.19 5.08 5.08 0.80 2.20
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
East Midlands
35
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000200 Babergh 67.4 0.4 0.3 83.8 16.2 2.3 3.0 0.17 0.15 4.99 4.99 0.61 2.47
E07000066 Basildon 57.2 0.5 0.4 83.9 16.1 2.9 1.4 0.15 0.14 4.15 4.15 0.62 1.26
E06000055 Bedford 80.6 0.9 0.7 73.1 26.9 3.5 6.1 0.14 0.12 2.89 2.89 0.35 1.58
E07000067 Braintree 67.4 0.4 0.4 83.5 16.5 2.7 2.6 0.17 0.12 3.88 3.88 0.53 1.59
E07000143 Breckland 75.8 0.8 0.6 82.4 17.6 4.4 2.6 0.27 0.22 4.78 4.78 0.91 2.05
E07000068 Brentwood 62.2 0.5 0.4 84.4 15.6 3.4 3.0 0.22 0.20 4.74 4.74 1.06 2.21
E07000144 Broadland 66.5 0.6 0.5 83.6 16.4 3.5 2.0 0.22 0.20 5.36 5.36 0.78 2.07
E07000095 Broxbourne * 1.0 0.8 72.5 27.5 3.5 4.2 0.25 0.23 4.80 4.80 0.66 2.18
E07000008 Cambridge 67.6 0.6 0.6 81.7 18.3 3.3 6.3 0.22 0.21 4.77 4.77 0.81 2.96
E07000069 Castle Point 66.0 0.6 0.5 80.2 19.8 2.9 1.3 0.21 0.19 5.82 5.82 0.60 1.71
E06000056 Central Bedfordshire 78.6 0.5 0.4 81.9 18.1 2.8 3.1 0.08 0.07 2.09 2.09 0.30 0.96
E07000070 Chelmsford 58.1 0.5 0.4 85.5 14.5 3.4 4.7 0.15 0.13 3.42 3.42 0.68 2.08
E07000071 Colchester 55.9 0.6 0.5 81.5 18.5 3.2 3.2 0.20 0.20 4.08 4.08 0.85 1.83
E07000096 Dacorum * 0.5 0.4 82.4 17.6 2.8 2.7 0.13 0.11 3.40 3.40 0.46 1.44
E07000009 East Cambridgeshire 67.7 0.3 0.2 89.9 10.1 2.5 1.9 0.13 0.11 3.54 3.54 0.94 1.64
E07000242 East Hertfordshire * 0.4 0.4 83.9 16.1 2.8 1.3 0.12 0.11 3.20 3.20 0.49 1.00
E07000072 Epping Forest 67.2 0.5 0.4 82.6 17.4 3.0 1.9 0.15 0.12 3.68 3.68 0.62 1.30
E07000010 Fenland 61.2 0.9 0.7 76.6 23.4 4.0 6.1 0.27 0.23 5.02 5.02 0.81 2.96
E07000201 Forest Heath 54.4 0.9 0.6 76.5 23.1 3.8 6.9 0.27 0.21 5.44 5.41 0.71 3.27
E07000145 Great Yarmouth 26.0 0.6 0.5 77.8 21.7 2.9 1.7 0.20 0.18 5.27 5.22 0.50 1.66
E07000073 Harlow 56.7 0.6 0.4 84.6 15.4 3.7 3.7 0.18 0.15 3.73 3.73 0.70 1.98
E07000098 Hertsmere * 0.7 0.5 79.6 20.4 3.2 4.3 0.16 0.14 3.73 3.73 0.49 1.88
E07000011 Huntingdonshire 71.3 0.6 0.4 81.5 18.5 3.3 4.3 0.21 0.15 4.54 4.54 0.80 2.41
E07000202 Ipswich 59.0 0.8 0.7 74.9 25.1 3.2 7.2 0.23 0.20 5.25 5.25 0.55 3.35
E07000146 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk 57.4 0.8 0.6 81.0 19.0 4.2 3.2 0.25 0.21 4.87 4.87 0.74 2.33
E06000032 Luton 77.7 1.7 1.2 57.4 42.6 4.0 14.7 0.29 0.24 5.10 5.10 0.49 3.64
E07000074 Maldon 66.3 0.2 0.2 88.9 10.6 2.4 0.3 0.13 0.09 4.05 3.96 0.54 0.65
E07000203 Mid Suffolk 70.0 0.4 0.3 88.4 11.6 3.0 0.9 0.16 0.15 4.20 4.20 0.83 1.25
E07000099 North Hertfordshire * 0.6 0.4 79.0 21.0 2.6 2.0 0.14 0.12 3.95 3.95 0.45 1.32
E07000147 North Norfolk 58.8 0.7 0.5 84.0 16.0 4.2 3.0 0.27 0.21 5.41 5.41 0.93 2.35
E07000148 Norwich 56.2 0.9 0.9 73.3 26.7 3.5 6.2 0.26 0.25 6.04 6.04 0.63 3.68
E06000031 Peterborough 72.9 1.1 0.9 70.0 30.0 3.8 8.1 0.27 0.24 5.40 5.40 0.57 3.38
E07000075 Rochford 64.9 0.2 0.2 87.1 12.9 1.9 0.9 0.10 0.10 4.48 4.48 0.48 1.27
E07000012 South Cambridgeshire 67.7 0.5 0.3 84.0 16.0 2.9 3.4 0.15 0.11 4.08 4.08 0.53 2.00
E07000149 South Norfolk 66.1 0.3 0.2 91.4 8.6 3.6 0.4 0.17 0.15 3.96 3.96 1.17 0.81
E06000033 Southend-on-Sea 56.1 0.6 0.5 82.3 17.4 3.3 3.3 0.18 0.16 4.21 4.19 0.66 1.99
E07000240 St Albans * 0.3 0.3 85.5 14.5 2.4 2.1 0.10 0.08 3.23 3.23 0.45 1.32
E07000204 St Edmundsbury 68.3 0.7 0.5 78.0 22.0 3.1 4.9 0.20 0.18 4.55 4.55 0.67 2.44
E07000243 Stevenage * 0.8 0.6 73.3 26.7 2.9 4.2 0.17 0.14 4.26 4.26 0.41 1.96
E07000205 Suffolk Coastal 73.4 0.6 0.5 80.2 19.8 3.0 5.2 0.22 0.20 5.24 5.24 0.83 3.00
E07000076 Tendring 58.6 0.7 0.6 79.0 21.0 3.3 5.5 0.20 0.18 4.37 4.37 0.67 2.45
E07000102 Three Rivers * 0.4 0.3 83.3 16.7 2.6 4.6 0.12 0.09 3.72 3.72 0.45 2.16
E06000034 Thurrock 73.0 0.6 0.5 80.5 19.5 3.1 2.8 0.19 0.18 4.81 4.81 0.64 1.97
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
East of England
36
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000077 Uttlesford 57.8 0.3 0.2 89.5 10.5 2.6 2.4 0.12 0.10 3.20 3.20 0.77 1.65
E07000103 Watford * 0.8 0.7 75.1 24.9 3.3 6.4 0.17 0.15 3.89 3.89 0.40 2.21
E07000206 Waveney 24.9 0.8 0.7 75.6 24.4 3.3 4.9 0.22 0.21 5.60 5.60 0.59 2.49
E07000241 Welwyn Hatfield * 0.6 0.5 79.1 20.9 2.9 4.5 0.16 0.14 3.99 3.99 0.53 2.05
E09000002 Barking and Dagenham 42.1 1.3 1.0 68.6 31.4 4.1 9.9 0.28 0.24 5.30 5.30 0.56 3.38
E09000003 Barnet 70.0 1.2 1.0 68.0 31.6 3.8 7.9 0.26 0.21 5.04 5.03 0.57 2.97
E09000004 Bexley 72.9 0.4 0.4 82.8 17.0 2.7 1.6 0.13 0.12 3.71 3.70 0.47 1.24
E09000005 Brent 66.6 1.3 1.0 69.2 30.8 4.2 12.1 0.22 0.19 4.18 4.18 0.47 2.99
E09000006 Bromley 86.5 0.4 0.4 84.0 16.0 2.7 5.1 0.15 0.14 4.19 4.19 0.64 2.54
E09000007 Camden 59.7 0.9 0.5 76.5 23.5 3.6 6.0 0.20 0.15 4.10 4.10 0.55 2.22
E09000008 Croydon 65.4 0.9 0.5 73.7 26.3 3.2 7.5 0.18 0.13 4.33 4.33 0.42 2.57
E09000009 Ealing 51.6 1.8 1.5 60.3 39.0 4.6 13.4 0.23 0.20 3.70 3.69 0.37 2.56
E09000010 Enfield 67.0 1.2 1.0 66.1 33.9 3.4 11.6 0.18 0.17 3.94 3.94 0.37 2.69
E09000011 Greenwich 60.6 0.8 0.6 76.1 23.9 3.2 4.3 0.20 0.17 4.71 4.71 0.57 2.14
E09000012 Hackney (including City of London) 50.5 1.0 0.7 73.4 27.0 3.6 9.3 0.12 0.10 2.41 2.41 0.31 1.57
E09000013 Hammersmith and Fulham 64.2 0.7 0.5 73.7 26.3 2.7 8.5 0.20 0.17 6.32 6.32 0.44 4.07
E09000014 Haringey 68.8 1.2 0.9 69.7 30.3 3.9 10.2 0.21 0.18 3.74 3.74 0.48 2.57
E09000015 Harrow 64.3 1.4 1.0 65.5 34.2 4.1 14.3 0.25 0.21 4.71 4.70 0.49 3.51
E09000016 Havering 49.4 0.7 0.6 80.0 20.0 3.3 3.7 0.24 0.22 5.06 5.06 0.90 2.34
E09000017 Hillingdon 69.9 1.5 1.2 62.2 37.8 3.9 16.7 0.26 0.24 4.75 4.75 0.50 3.72
E09000018 Hounslow 68.6 1.1 0.8 69.4 30.5 3.6 5.2 0.14 0.12 3.02 3.02 0.31 1.46
E09000019 Islington 57.5 0.9 0.5 75.6 24.4 3.5 6.7 0.16 0.11 3.45 3.45 0.45 2.01
E09000020 Kensington and Chelsea 53.1 1.1 0.8 66.6 33.4 3.3 12.2 0.28 0.25 6.11 6.11 0.60 4.34
E09000021 Kingston upon Thames 76.0 0.8 0.6 77.1 22.9 3.4 3.2 0.20 0.17 4.41 4.41 0.61 1.85
E09000022 Lambeth 47.5 0.8 0.6 77.9 22.1 3.7 5.7 0.16 0.13 3.15 3.15 0.47 1.77
E09000023 Lewisham 63.2 0.6 0.4 76.7 23.3 2.4 4.6 0.16 0.10 4.33 4.33 0.31 2.30
E09000024 Merton 70.3 0.9 0.6 73.9 26.1 3.5 6.7 0.22 0.17 4.26 4.26 0.63 2.40
E09000025 Newham 63.7 1.2 1.0 70.7 28.3 4.5 8.7 0.09 0.08 1.59 1.57 0.20 0.98
E09000026 Redbridge 53.3 1.0 0.7 76.3 23.7 4.1 9.1 0.21 0.18 4.19 4.19 0.58 2.77
E09000027 Richmond upon Thames 69.3 0.5 0.3 81.0 19.0 2.5 1.9 0.13 0.10 3.91 3.91 0.47 1.34
E09000028 Southwark 45.8 0.6 0.4 81.2 18.8 3.3 4.5 0.15 0.10 3.43 3.43 0.50 1.84
E09000029 Sutton 69.0 0.6 0.4 81.0 19.0 3.0 5.1 0.12 0.11 2.94 2.94 0.45 1.72
E09000030 Tower Hamlets 59.9 1.3 1.0 64.5 35.5 3.6 12.3 0.11 0.09 2.29 2.29 0.21 1.56
E09000031 Waltham Forest 61.3 1.1 0.8 70.2 29.8 3.5 8.5 0.22 0.19 4.51 4.51 0.50 2.76
E09000032 Wandsworth 64.3 0.8 0.6 76.8 23.2 3.6 7.9 0.19 0.16 4.04 4.04 0.55 2.55
E09000033 Westminster 65.4 1.2 0.8 64.9 35.1 3.3 13.5 0.15 0.13 3.25 3.25 0.31 2.34
E06000047 County Durham 67.3 1.1 0.9 64.9 35.1 3.0 8.4 0.25 0.22 6.13 6.13 0.46 3.65
E06000005 Darlington 59.6 1.2 0.9 64.6 35.4 3.4 9.5 0.30 0.26 5.99 5.99 0.64 3.66
E08000037 Gateshead 61.3 0.7 0.5 76.2 23.8 2.7 3.3 0.21 0.17 6.02 6.02 0.59 2.38
E06000001 Hartlepool 51.8 0.4 0.3 84.6 15.4 2.6 3.1 0.16 0.11 4.76 4.76 0.68 2.32
E06000002 Middlesbrough 50.9 1.7 1.1 61.2 38.8 4.3 10.0 0.34 0.28 5.55 5.55 0.61 3.54
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
London North East East of England
37
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E08000021 Newcastle upon Tyne 44.4 0.7 0.5 77.5 22.5 3.2 4.8 0.26 0.21 5.84 5.84 0.87 3.06
E08000022 North Tyneside 68.0 0.5 0.4 81.7 18.3 2.9 3.2 0.17 0.15 5.02 5.02 0.51 2.36
E06000057 Northumberland 65.9 0.7 0.5 74.3 25.7 2.9 3.9 0.18 0.14 4.90 4.90 0.45 2.24
E06000003 Redcar and Cleveland 54.4 1.1 0.7 72.9 27.1 4.1 8.0 0.33 0.24 5.75 5.75 0.84 3.64
E08000023 South Tyneside 58.7 0.7 0.5 74.0 26.0 2.7 1.5 0.22 0.18 6.02 6.02 0.55 1.65
E06000004 Stockton-on-Tees 55.6 0.9 0.6 74.7 25.3 3.7 6.2 0.26 0.19 5.08 5.08 0.73 2.68
E08000024 Sunderland 67.6 1.5 1.2 59.9 40.1 3.8 11.5 0.35 0.32 6.14 6.14 0.59 4.16
E07000026 Allerdale * 1.1 0.8 70.5 29.5 3.8 7.4 0.27 0.21 5.43 5.43 0.59 3.12
E07000027 Barrow-in-Furness 75.1 1.5 1.3 58.3 41.7 3.6 9.6 0.22 0.20 4.54 4.54 0.36 2.67
E06000008 Blackburn with Darwen 70.0 2.4 2.1 43.9 55.7 4.4 13.5 0.42 0.38 6.08 6.09 0.56 4.32
E06000009 Blackpool 60.3 1.8 1.4 57.5 42.5 4.3 11.8 0.43 0.36 7.28 7.28 0.68 4.87
E08000001 Bolton 68.7 1.7 1.2 59.5 40.5 4.1 13.7 0.34 0.26 6.03 6.03 0.56 4.36
E07000117 Burnley 68.3 1.8 1.4 57.4 42.6 4.2 11.7 0.36 0.30 6.15 6.15 0.58 4.07
E08000002 Bury 59.7 0.9 0.7 73.3 26.7 3.4 3.6 0.25 0.22 5.70 5.70 0.60 2.34
E07000028 Carlisle * 1.2 1.0 67.8 32.2 3.6 8.8 0.23 0.22 4.73 4.73 0.50 2.94
E06000049 Cheshire East 72.9 0.8 0.6 79.1 20.9 3.7 4.1 0.27 0.23 4.87 4.87 0.97 2.56
E06000050 Cheshire West and Chester 66.3 0.7 0.6 79.7 20.3 3.3 2.1 0.26 0.24 5.78 5.78 0.87 2.28
E07000118 Chorley 77.1 0.4 0.5 83.7 15.6 3.0 1.7 0.22 0.21 5.16 5.07 0.96 1.94
E07000029 Copeland * 1.2 0.9 65.2 34.8 3.5 7.4 0.34 0.27 6.86 6.86 0.67 3.81
E07000030 Eden 67.8 1.0 0.9 70.9 29.1 3.5 7.3 0.28 0.26 5.31 5.31 0.70 3.03
E07000119 Fylde 60.5 0.7 0.6 70.1 29.9 2.4 3.9 0.21 0.19 6.57 6.57 0.42 2.80
E06000006 Halton 59.4 0.9 0.8 73.3 26.2 3.6 5.7 0.31 0.27 6.25 6.22 0.78 3.41
E07000120 Hyndburn 66.0 1.5 1.5 56.5 43.5 3.5 8.4 0.34 0.33 6.46 6.46 0.54 3.73
E08000011 Knowsley 45.4 1.2 0.8 67.5 32.5 3.8 6.8 0.27 0.20 5.04 5.04 0.59 2.79
E07000121 Lancaster * 0.7 0.6 79.4 20.6 3.5 2.9 0.20 0.18 4.25 4.25 0.66 1.77
E08000012 Liverpool 41.3 1.4 0.9 68.2 31.8 4.3 8.3 0.27 0.23 4.90 4.90 0.56 2.68
E08000003 Manchester 62.1 1.3 1.1 67.3 32.7 4.0 12.8 0.28 0.24 5.24 5.24 0.56 3.72
E08000004 Oldham 63.1 2.5 2.2 49.1 50.9 4.8 20.8 0.44 0.42 6.29 6.29 0.63 5.23
E07000122 Pendle 64.8 1.7 1.3 56.7 43.3 3.8 12.7 0.36 0.30 6.51 6.51 0.58 4.48
E07000123 Preston 70.3 1.8 1.4 56.5 43.5 4.3 15.4 0.37 0.33 5.99 5.99 0.64 4.21
E07000124 Ribble Valley 76.9 0.6 0.5 80.1 19.9 3.1 3.6 0.23 0.18 5.50 5.50 0.78 2.57
E08000005 Rochdale 86.5 2.1 1.8 56.5 43.5 4.9 16.6 0.34 0.32 5.19 5.19 0.54 3.95
E07000125 Rossendale 68.7 1.2 1.0 66.7 33.3 3.7 5.6 0.37 0.33 6.73 6.73 0.79 3.43
E08000006 Salford 57.8 1.8 1.7 49.0 51.0 3.6 10.9 0.30 0.28 5.25 5.25 0.46 3.37
E08000014 Sefton 53.0 0.6 0.5 77.3 22.7 2.8 4.7 0.16 0.13 4.47 4.47 0.44 2.31
E07000031 South Lakeland 71.8 0.9 0.7 78.4 21.6 4.0 5.0 0.27 0.24 5.29 5.29 0.77 2.86
E07000126 South Ribble 83.3 0.8 0.6 75.6 24.4 3.3 2.7 0.26 0.22 5.47 5.47 0.68 2.24
E08000013 St. Helens 46.7 1.1 0.8 70.3 29.7 3.7 7.5 0.36 0.30 7.08 7.08 0.85 4.37
E08000007 Stockport 64.1 0.8 0.6 78.3 21.7 3.5 5.4 0.25 0.22 5.15 5.15 0.80 2.92
E08000008 Tameside 64.2 1.2 1.0 68.6 31.4 3.7 8.8 0.24 0.22 4.94 4.94 0.52 2.61
E08000009 Trafford 82.5 0.9 0.8 73.6 26.4 3.3 6.9 0.20 0.19 4.41 4.41 0.55 2.58
E06000007 Warrington 47.0 0.9 0.8 75.5 24.5 3.5 2.8 0.51 0.47 8.01 8.01 1.57 3.47
North East North West
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
38
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000127 West Lancashire 55.0 1.0 0.8 70.5 28.8 3.5 5.3 0.31 0.25 6.77 6.77 0.58 3.45
E08000010 Wigan 57.9 1.1 0.9 67.5 32.5 3.5 5.5 0.27 0.22 5.64 5.64 0.56 2.81
E08000015 Wirral 57.1 1.2 0.8 67.1 32.9 3.5 7.2 0.30 0.25 6.55 6.55 0.61 3.51
E07000128 Wyre 53.2 1.5 1.2 65.6 34.4 4.3 8.6 0.42 0.36 7.06 7.06 0.88 4.43
E07000223 Adur
E07000224 Arun *
E07000105 Ashford 64.9 0.4 0.3 84.5 15.1 2.5 1.4 0.15 0.14 4.84 4.81 0.62 1.61
E07000004 Aylesbury Vale 74.6 0.7 0.6 74.6 25.1 3.0 2.9 0.25 0.23 5.20 5.19 0.74 2.32
E07000084 Basingstoke and Deane 47.2 0.5 0.4 83.1 16.9 2.8 2.5 0.22 0.20 5.76 5.76 0.71 2.39
E06000036 Bracknell Forest 63.5 0.8 0.6 77.9 22.1 3.5 5.6 0.24 0.23 4.91 4.91 0.80 2.76
E06000043 Brighton and Hove 54.1 0.4 0.2 82.4 16.2 2.3 1.3 0.17 0.10 5.83 5.22 0.67 1.51
E07000106 Canterbury 69.1 0.6 0.4 84.9 15.1 4.2 0.7 0.26 0.21 4.73 4.73 0.88 1.02
E07000177 Cherwell 67.8 0.7 0.6 78.2 21.8 3.1 5.5 0.21 0.19 5.00 5.00 0.64 2.86
E07000225 Chichester * 0.5 0.4 76.7 23.3 2.1 8.5 0.43 0.37 14.35 14.35 0.45 10.14
E07000005 Chiltern 76.1 0.4 0.4 86.9 13.1 3.4 3.1 0.19 0.15 4.08 4.08 1.02 2.07
E07000226 Crawley * 0.7 0.9 72.0 25.3 3.6 7.8 0.78 0.61 11.37 10.67 1.84 7.72
E07000107 Dartford 65.3 0.5 0.4 81.5 18.5 2.6 1.8 0.15 0.14 4.80 4.80 0.49 1.58
E07000108 Dover 62.3 0.4 0.3 87.5 12.5 3.6 0.9 0.19 0.16 4.71 4.71 0.76 1.09
E07000085 East Hampshire 49.2 0.3 0.2 89.0 11.0 2.7 0.7 0.18 0.13 5.01 5.01 1.08 1.27
E07000061 Eastbourne 47.6 0.5 0.5 77.2 22.8 2.3 2.3 0.28 0.24 9.50 9.50 0.72 3.03
E07000086 Eastleigh 49.5 0.3 0.2 87.3 12.7 2.0 0.7 0.10 0.08 4.01 4.01 0.45 0.91
E07000207 Elmbridge 55.7 0.5 0.4 83.7 16.3 3.1 2.1 0.25 0.22 5.84 5.84 1.04 2.30
E07000208 Epsom and Ewell 41.5 0.6 0.4 79.6 20.4 2.9 1.4 0.29 0.22 6.70 6.70 1.07 1.89
E07000087 Fareham 60.3 0.3 0.3 88.3 11.7 2.7 1.1 0.16 0.15 4.54 4.54 0.87 1.49
E07000088 Gosport 46.8 0.6 0.5 82.4 17.6 3.2 5.0 0.21 0.17 4.79 4.79 0.81 2.72
E07000109 Gravesham 67.8 0.6 0.5 78.5 20.3 3.1 3.4 0.21 0.19 4.85 4.74 0.67 2.20
E07000209 Guildford 54.4 0.7 0.4 80.3 19.7 3.3 5.2 0.31 0.27 6.08 6.08 1.19 3.50
E07000089 Hart 56.2 0.5 0.4 86.2 13.8 3.5 2.2 0.21 0.19 4.32 4.32 0.92 1.95
E07000062 Hastings 59.9 0.8 0.6 77.9 22.1 3.5 7.8 0.37 0.30 8.17 8.17 1.07 5.29
E07000090 Havant 51.2 0.6 0.3 82.6 17.4 3.3 2.5 0.20 0.14 4.70 4.70 0.78 1.99
E07000227 Horsham * 0.4 0.4 86.7 13.3 3.1 2.1 0.36 0.36 6.84 6.84 2.29 2.81
E06000046 Isle of Wight 75.4 0.8 0.6 73.6 26.4 3.1 3.1 0.17 0.14 3.88 3.88 0.45 1.52
E07000063 Lewes 70.0 0.3 0.3 84.9 15.1 1.9 0.0 0.22 0.22 9.47 9.47 0.72 0.00
E07000110 Maidstone 72.3 0.7 0.6 78.9 20.5 3.5 3.0 0.22 0.20 4.65 4.61 0.75 1.96
E06000035 Medway 68.5 0.7 0.6 81.3 18.4 3.7 3.1 0.22 0.19 4.43 4.38 0.66 1.97
E07000228 Mid Sussex * 0.3 0.2 86.9 12.8 2.4 2.2 0.13 0.12 4.31 4.31 0.61 1.86
E06000042 Milton Keynes 61.1 0.6 0.5 78.3 21.5 3.0 4.7 0.07 0.06 1.69 1.68 0.22 0.88
E07000210 Mole Valley 56.0 0.5 0.4 80.5 19.5 2.4 1.6 0.16 0.15 5.68 5.68 0.58 1.74
E07000091 New Forest 48.3 0.6 0.5 81.3 18.7 3.3 2.8 0.24 0.20 5.07 5.07 0.84 2.12
E07000178 Oxford 65.6 1.2 1.0 67.2 32.8 3.6 9.3 0.27 0.24 5.64 5.64 0.52 3.54
E06000044 Portsmouth 78.3 0.6 0.3 81.9 18.1 3.2 2.3 0.10 0.08 2.54 2.54 0.37 1.02
E06000038 Reading 67.1 0.9 0.7 71.9 28.1 3.4 7.5 0.23 0.18 5.03 5.03 0.55 3.01
North
West
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
South East
39
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000211 Reigate and Banstead 50.6 0.3 0.2 87.7 12.3 2.3 0.8 0.16 0.14 6.50 6.50 0.77 1.51
E07000064 Rother 59.6 0.7 0.4 69.7 30.3 2.2 3.1 0.27 0.16 9.07 9.07 0.60 3.43
E07000212 Runnymede 55.9 0.6 0.4 77.6 22.4 2.6 1.5 0.26 0.20 7.56 7.56 0.79 1.98
E07000092 Rushmoor 50.0 1.0 0.8 75.8 24.2 4.2 7.6 0.34 0.30 6.35 6.35 0.89 3.82
E07000111 Sevenoaks 78.9 0.2 0.2 86.6 13.4 1.8 0.7 0.10 0.09 4.10 4.10 0.49 0.93
E07000112 Shepway 73.6 0.6 0.4 83.8 15.9 4.0 2.6 0.26 0.23 5.17 5.14 1.03 1.99
E06000039 Slough 65.5 1.8 1.5 58.7 41.3 4.3 11.2 0.32 0.29 5.57 5.57 0.51 3.55
E07000006 South Bucks 71.1 0.6 0.4 76.4 23.6 2.4 2.4 0.16 0.12 5.19 5.19 0.41 1.92
E07000179 South Oxfordshire 77.4 0.6 0.3 82.8 17.2 3.4 1.8 0.20 0.13 4.29 4.29 0.73 1.59
E06000045 Southampton 81.5 1.3 0.9 66.3 33.7 3.7 7.2 0.13 0.11 2.69 2.69 0.27 1.49
E07000213 Spelthorne 46.4 0.4 0.4 82.7 17.3 2.4 0.6 0.21 0.19 6.04 6.04 0.83 1.25
E07000214 Surrey Heath 61.9 0.4 0.3 86.5 13.5 2.9 4.6 0.20 0.20 5.82 5.82 0.87 3.32
E07000113 Swale 69.0 1.0 0.7 81.6 18.4 5.3 2.6 0.39 0.36 5.64 5.64 0.99 2.46
E07000215 Tandridge
E07000093 Test Valley 49.5 0.2 0.1 90.6 9.4 1.9 0.5 0.11 0.05 4.15 4.15 0.88 1.03
E07000114 Thanet 69.3 0.6 0.5 82.7 16.7 3.6 1.6 0.23 0.21 4.74 4.65 0.87 1.74
E07000115 Tonbridge and Malling 68.5 0.4 0.4 86.9 12.7 3.3 1.5 0.18 0.17 3.97 3.94 0.90 1.48
E07000116 Tunbridge Wells 70.5 0.4 0.3 82.1 17.9 2.2 1.9 0.12 0.12 4.49 4.49 0.43 1.64
E07000180 Vale of White Horse 67.8 0.8 0.6 79.4 20.6 3.7 5.3 0.21 0.19 4.72 4.72 0.58 2.61
E07000216 Waverley 40.9 0.1 0.1 91.8 8.2 1.2 0.8 0.06 0.05 5.11 5.11 0.25 1.60
E07000065 Wealden 59.2 0.3 0.2 87.5 12.5 2.1 1.8 0.18 0.17 5.75 5.75 1.11 2.49
E06000037 West Berkshire 63.2 0.7 0.6 76.9 23.1 3.2 3.3 0.29 0.24 6.03 6.03 0.86 3.10
E07000181 West Oxfordshire 70.9 0.5 0.4 81.2 18.8 2.8 1.8 0.16 0.13 4.49 4.49 0.44 1.54
E07000094 Winchester 52.8 0.2 0.1 89.3 10.7 2.2 2.0 0.15 0.12 4.75 4.75 1.05 2.29
E06000040 Windsor and Maidenhead 67.5 0.6 0.5 81.5 18.5 3.4 5.5 0.21 0.20 4.66 4.66 0.75 2.80
E07000217 Woking 53.4 0.9 0.7 75.3 24.7 3.6 7.0 0.33 0.30 6.71 6.71 0.95 3.86
E06000041 Wokingham 65.3 0.6 0.4 85.2 14.8 3.8 4.6 0.25 0.20 4.45 4.45 1.21 2.64
E07000229 Worthing * 0.3 0.2 84.1 15.9 1.9 3.8 0.16 0.15 6.52 6.52 0.61 3.62
E07000007 Wycombe 73.7 0.9 0.7 71.1 28.9 3.0 4.4 0.22 0.18 5.04 5.04 0.55 2.32
E06000022 Bath and North East Somerset 65.7 0.4 0.3 85.0 15.0 2.5 3.5 0.16 0.12 4.47 4.47 0.71 2.25
E06000028 Bournemouth 81.0 0.9 0.6 71.8 28.2 3.3 4.7 0.23 0.18 5.33 5.33 0.56 2.45
E06000023 Bristol, City of 59.9 1.1 0.7 71.1 28.9 3.9 6.1 0.28 0.23 5.39 5.39 0.67 2.97
E07000078 Cheltenham 76.4 0.5 0.4 81.9 18.1 2.8 3.7 0.18 0.14 4.98 4.98 0.64 2.55
E07000048 Christchurch 74.4 0.9 0.5 73.5 26.5 3.3 7.5 0.48 0.32 10.39 10.39 0.87 6.25
E06000052 Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly) 70.7 0.7 0.5 78.3 21.7 3.2 5.1 0.13 0.11 2.95 2.95 0.38 1.61
E07000079 Cotswold 79.7 0.4 0.3 86.3 13.7 3.2 3.2 0.24 0.19 4.54 4.54 1.31 2.34
E07000040 East Devon 83.0 0.3 0.3 84.8 15.2 2.3 3.5 0.12 0.11 4.31 4.31 0.40 2.23
E07000049 East Dorset 69.1 0.4 0.3 79.5 20.5 2.2 0.4 0.14 0.12 5.82 5.82 0.32 0.80
E07000041 Exeter 77.5 0.7 0.5 74.7 25.3 2.9 6.2 0.19 0.16 4.56 4.56 0.51 2.57
E07000080 Forest of Dean 67.6 1.0 0.8 71.6 28.4 3.5 5.4 0.25 0.22 5.29 5.29 0.57 2.66
E07000081 Gloucester 59.2 0.8 0.6 80.3 19.7 4.0 5.2 0.27 0.25 5.26 5.26 0.91 3.13
E07000187 Mendip 65.5 0.5 0.4 80.3 19.7 2.7 1.9 0.17 0.14 4.72 4.72 0.58 1.63
South East
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
South West
40
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000042 Mid Devon 85.8 0.6 0.3 80.6 19.4 3.0 2.5 0.17 0.13 4.52 4.52 0.57 1.81
E07000043 North Devon 81.3 0.7 0.5 77.4 22.6 3.1 3.0 0.20 0.16 4.92 4.92 0.57 2.00
E07000050 North Dorset 76.5 0.6 0.5 76.4 23.6 2.6 2.3 0.27 0.24 8.24 8.24 0.69 2.54
E06000024 North Somerset 62.7 0.6 0.4 81.9 18.1 3.1 2.0 0.19 0.17 4.74 4.74 0.66 1.55
E06000026 Plymouth 48.3 0.4 0.4 84.7 15.3 2.8 1.8 0.14 0.13 3.74 3.74 0.57 1.36
E06000029 Poole 89.4 0.7 0.5 78.7 21.3 3.5 4.9 0.18 0.15 3.82 3.82 0.58 2.11
E07000051 Purbeck 94.5 0.8 0.7 74.5 25.5 3.3 6.9 0.38 0.32 8.14 8.14 0.94 4.83
E07000188 Sedgemoor 73.1 0.9 0.7 72.9 27.1 3.3 4.2 0.27 0.20 5.61 5.61 0.73 2.62
E06000025 South Gloucestershire 73.5 0.4 0.3 85.9 14.1 2.9 0.7 0.15 0.11 4.18 4.18 0.69 0.95
E07000044 South Hams 74.6 0.5 0.3 81.6 18.4 2.6 3.9 0.15 0.11 4.78 4.78 0.44 2.39
E07000189 South Somerset 64.1 0.9 0.7 75.0 25.0 3.7 7.7 0.30 0.24 5.72 5.72 0.85 3.58
E07000082 Stroud 80.5 0.3 0.2 86.6 13.4 2.4 2.5 0.14 0.10 4.42 4.42 0.70 2.00
E06000030 Swindon 67.8 0.8 0.7 72.1 27.9 2.8 5.7 0.22 0.20 5.64 5.64 0.55 2.87
E07000190 Taunton Deane 67.6 0.6 0.5 80.2 19.8 2.8 4.0 0.21 0.19 5.07 5.07 0.79 2.59
E07000045 Teignbridge 75.0 0.6 0.4 80.6 19.4 2.9 4.1 0.18 0.15 4.70 4.70 0.63 2.30
E07000083 Tewkesbury 71.8 0.9 0.7 77.0 23.0 3.9 5.1 0.25 0.23 5.12 5.12 0.67 2.62
E06000027 Torbay 74.5 0.8 0.6 73.2 26.8 3.1 4.3 0.22 0.17 5.22 5.22 0.57 2.24
E07000046 Torridge 83.5 0.6 0.5 79.2 20.8 3.0 4.3 0.18 0.16 4.73 4.73 0.54 2.36
E07000047 West Devon 81.4 0.5 0.4 84.6 15.4 3.0 4.2 0.19 0.16 4.37 4.37 0.90 2.42
E07000052 West Dorset 74.8 0.4 0.3 79.2 20.8 1.8 1.9 0.16 0.14 7.53 7.53 0.38 2.63
E07000191 West Somerset 64.2 0.7 0.5 75.7 24.3 2.9 2.5 0.24 0.18 6.50 6.50 0.63 2.41
E07000053 Weymouth and Portland 73.6 0.7 0.6 70.7 29.3 2.5 5.3 0.27 0.23 9.32 9.32 0.47 5.11
E06000054 Wiltshire 66.9 0.4 0.3 78.2 21.8 2.0 3.3 0.17 0.13 6.08 6.08 0.58 2.70
E08000025 Birmingham 53.9 0.8 0.5 71.3 28.7 2.9 3.7 0.21 0.14 4.90 4.90 0.52 2.13
E07000234 Bromsgrove 64.3 0.3 0.2 87.1 12.9 2.3 1.3 0.08 0.06 2.72 2.72 0.41 0.88
E07000192 Cannock Chase 60.9 0.2 0.2 90.2 9.8 2.5 0.0 0.15 0.11 4.36 4.36 1.08 0.00
E08000026 Coventry 79.7 1.0 0.9 71.6 28.4 3.7 11.1 0.28 0.26 5.31 5.31 0.71 3.77
E08000027 Dudley 59.1 0.5 0.4 81.5 18.5 2.5 2.3 0.06 0.06 1.88 1.88 0.24 0.74
E07000193 East Staffordshire 61.0 0.5 0.4 87.0 13.0 3.6 1.1 0.21 0.18 4.47 4.47 0.91 1.45
E06000019 Herefordshire, County of 79.1 1.4 1.2 58.7 41.3 3.5 6.5 0.27 0.24 5.66 5.66 0.44 2.74
E07000194 Lichfield 55.0 0.3 0.3 83.3 16.7 2.1 1.2 0.13 0.11 5.27 5.27 0.41 1.70
E07000235 Malvern Hills 60.0 0.5 0.4 82.3 17.7 3.0 2.5 0.17 0.16 3.80 3.80 0.70 1.55
E07000195 Newcastle-under-Lyme 78.9 0.8 0.7 74.5 25.5 3.0 1.3 0.24 0.21 5.55 5.55 0.66 1.41
E07000218 North Warwickshire 67.0 0.6 0.5 78.5 21.5 2.8 2.5 0.23 0.19 5.76 5.76 0.73 2.19
E07000219 Nuneaton and Bedworth 70.4 0.8 0.6 74.5 25.5 3.2 6.7 0.23 0.19 5.16 5.16 0.64 2.80
E07000236 Redditch 55.0 0.6 0.4 81.1 18.9 3.1 3.4 0.13 0.11 3.26 3.26 0.45 1.52
E07000220 Rugby 73.7 1.4 1.2 59.9 40.1 3.4 5.5 0.34 0.29 6.33 6.33 0.64 2.99
E08000028 Sandwell 62.4 0.7 0.5 76.6 23.4 2.9 4.1 0.06 0.05 1.64 1.64 0.18 0.77
E06000051 Shropshire 54.4 0.8 0.7 78.5 21.5 3.7 5.7 0.34 0.30 6.42 6.42 1.07 4.03
E08000029 Solihull 71.6 0.6 0.5 82.9 17.1 3.3 2.5 0.22 0.21 4.70 4.70 0.88 1.86
E07000196 South Staffordshire 73.1 0.5 0.4 83.4 16.6 2.7 1.3 0.17 0.16 4.65 4.65 0.64 1.40
E07000197 Stafford 66.2 0.5 0.4 77.8 22.2 2.3 1.4 0.18 0.17 6.49 6.49 0.46 1.60
South West
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
West Midlands
41
Appendix 2. Dental Public Health Epidemiology Programme for England, Oral Health Survey of five-year-old children 2015, lower tier local authority (LA)
LA did not partake in survey
Based on fewer than 30 volunteers
Region Lower Tier
LA Code Lower Tier LA Name
% of sample
examined
(* unavailable)
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t % d3mft = 0 % d3mft > 0
Mean d3mft
(% d3mft >
0)
% with
incisor
caries
Mean
d3mft
Mean
d3t
% d3mft
= 0
% d3mft
> 0
Mean
d3mft
(% d3mft
> 0)
% with
incisor
caries
E07000198 Staffordshire Moorlands 51.9 0.6 0.6 79.0 21.0 3.1 1.2 0.19 0.18 5.10 5.10 0.55 1.33
E06000021 Stoke-on-Trent 69.9 1.2 1.0 70.7 29.3 4.1 5.2 0.29 0.25 5.37 5.37 0.63 2.66
E07000221 Stratford-on-Avon 74.7 0.6 0.5 80.4 19.6 3.2 2.6 0.23 0.20 5.09 5.09 0.81 2.05
E07000199 Tamworth 59.1 0.4 0.3 85.9 14.1 2.6 0.0 0.21 0.15 5.34 5.34 1.09 0.00
E06000020 Telford and Wrekin 47.8 0.9 0.7 77.0 23.0 3.8 8.3 0.37 0.31 6.55 6.55 1.07 4.57
E08000030 Walsall 64.3 0.7 0.5 74.8 25.2 2.7 4.1 0.07 0.06 2.06 2.06 0.20 0.94
E07000222 Warwick 78.5 0.8 0.7 72.8 27.2 3.0 3.0 0.25 0.21 5.41 5.41 0.69 2.22
E08000031 Wolverhampton 64.4 1.0 0.9 72.2 27.8 3.6 7.0 0.09 0.09 1.90 1.90 0.23 1.09
E07000237 Worcester 59.1 0.9 0.7 72.7 27.3 3.3 6.5 0.15 0.13 3.21 3.21 0.39 1.82
E07000238 Wychavon 65.6 0.7 0.5 78.1 21.9 3.1 3.8 0.12 0.10 2.96 2.96 0.37 1.38
E07000239 Wyre Forest 51.4 0.7 0.6 76.4 23.6 3.0 4.5 0.17 0.14 3.86 3.86 0.48 1.94
E08000016 Barnsley 60.4 1.1 0.8 69.8 30.2 3.5 7.3 0.11 0.08 2.19 2.19 0.24 1.26
E08000032 Bradford 48.4 1.5 1.0 62.5 37.3 4.0 9.3 0.16 0.12 2.85 2.85 0.30 1.76
E08000033 Calderdale 73.2 1.1 0.8 70.7 29.3 3.7 5.6 0.26 0.20 5.10 5.10 0.60 2.70
E07000163 Craven 73.3 0.6 0.5 78.2 21.8 2.8 4.8 0.22 0.20 5.12 5.12 0.65 2.67
E08000017 Doncaster 59.5 1.1 0.7 69.0 31.0 3.6 7.8 0.29 0.22 5.84 5.84 0.67 3.41
E06000011 East Riding of Yorkshire 72.4 0.6 0.5 76.9 23.1 2.6 4.2 0.18 0.15 5.85 5.85 0.45 2.74
E07000164 Hambleton 68.0 0.7 0.5 78.8 20.8 3.4 2.7 0.22 0.19 5.03 4.99 0.69 1.92
E07000165 Harrogate 73.0 0.5 0.4 80.4 19.6 2.8 3.4 0.17 0.14 4.43 4.43 0.61 2.04
E06000010 Kingston upon Hull, City of 65.5 1.6 1.2 62.2 37.8 4.1 12.7 0.31 0.28 5.93 5.93 0.54 4.02
E08000034 Kirklees 62.7 1.1 0.9 71.1 28.9 3.7 7.0 0.26 0.23 5.17 5.17 0.60 3.03
E08000035 Leeds 51.6 1.1 0.9 68.6 31.4 3.5 10.3 0.13 0.11 2.59 2.59 0.28 1.75
E06000012 North East Lincolnshire 56.8 1.1 0.9 70.1 29.9 3.6 7.1 0.14 0.12 2.85 2.85 0.32 1.64
E06000013 North Lincolnshire 49.5 0.5 0.4 81.9 18.1 2.9 2.2 0.10 0.08 2.54 2.54 0.38 1.00
E07000166 Richmondshire 58.8 0.7 0.5 79.2 20.8 3.2 4.8 0.23 0.19 5.37 5.37 0.64 2.92
E08000018 Rotherham 58.9 1.0 0.7 71.1 28.9 3.5 8.1 0.10 0.08 2.07 2.07 0.22 1.27
E07000167 Ryedale 62.5 0.5 0.4 83.0 17.0 3.2 1.7 0.20 0.17 5.47 5.47 0.71 1.47
E07000168 Scarborough 63.5 0.7 0.7 77.6 22.4 3.3 3.8 0.25 0.24 5.49 5.49 0.75 2.72
E07000169 Selby 62.5 0.6 0.4 77.3 22.7 2.5 1.6 0.18 0.14 5.32 5.32 0.54 1.73
E08000019 Sheffield 68.0 1.1 0.8 68.6 31.4 3.5 6.3 0.23 0.20 4.35 4.35 0.54 2.39
E08000036 Wakefield 29.1 1.6 1.3 63.5 36.5 4.5 12.6 0.44 0.36 6.87 6.87 0.85 4.87
E06000014 York 57.5 0.5 0.4 83.6 16.4 3.3 4.7 0.23 0.19 4.92 4.92 0.93 2.92
E12000004 East Midlands 64.1 0.9 0.7 72.5 27.5 3.3 5.6 0.04 0.04 0.93 0.93 0.11 0.49
E12000006 East of England 65.5 0.7 0.5 79.7 20.2 3.2 4.1 0.03 0.02 0.63 0.63 0.09 0.31
E12000007 London 61.1 1.0 0.8 72.6 27.2 3.7 8.2 0.03 0.03 0.63 0.63 0.08 0.38
E12000001 North East 58.0 1.0 0.7 72.0 28.0 3.4 6.2 0.08 0.06 1.63 1.63 0.19 0.89
E12000002 North West 65.1 1.3 1.0 66.6 33.4 3.8 8.5 0.05 0.04 0.92 0.92 0.10 0.56
E12000008 South East 63.0 0.6 0.5 79.9 20.0 3.2 3.6 0.03 0.02 0.59 0.59 0.08 0.27
E12000009 South West 72.5 0.7 0.5 78.5 21.5 3.1 4.0 0.04 0.03 0.84 0.84 0.11 0.41
E12000005 West Midlands 62.5 0.7 0.6 76.6 23.4 3.1 4.2 0.03 0.02 0.65 0.65 0.08 0.32
E12000003 Yorkshire and The Humber 57.4 1.0 0.8 71.5 28.5 3.6 7.0 0.04 0.03 0.81 0.81 0.10 0.48
Region West Midlands
Number examined too small (<30) for
robust estimate
Weighted Measures 95% Confidence Intervals
Yorkshire and the Humber

Dental Epidemiology Programme: oral health survey of five-year-old children 2015

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to top