Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2021; 43(3): 124-131
Published online September 30, 2021
https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2021.43.3.124
© Korean Academy of Dental Technology
한민수, 권은자, 최에스더
혜전대학교 치기공과
Min Soo Han , Eun Ja Kwon
, Esther Choi
Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Hyejeon College, Hongseong, Korea
Correspondence to :
Min Soo Han
Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Hyejeon College, 19 Daehak 1-gil, Hongseong-eup, Hongseong-gun 32244, Korea E-mail: ceramic2002@hj.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-2913
*This paper was supported by grant from Hyejeon College, 2020.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the perception of dental implant insurance supply and demand for the elderly living in Hongseong-gun and Chungcheongnam-do, as well as the selection criteria regarding dental clinics for dental implant treatment to collect basic data for improving the oral health of the elderly population.
Methods: Participants living in Hongseong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do who were at least 55 years old from November 2020 to March 2021 were included in this study. The chi-square test was performed to examine the age-specific perception of insurance-covered dental implants (p<0.05).
Results: The age group that was the most interested in implants was the 70s age group, and the difference between this age group and the other age groups was statistically significant. Those in their 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s or older paid about 600,000 won including dental implants covered by insurance, and there was a significant difference (p<0.05). Those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s estimated the highest value of implants covered by insurance as two and showed a significant difference (p<0.05). The awareness of the dental implant insurance by age showed that all age groups, except for the ≥90 years age group, considered the insurance to be mediocre mostly due to the large co-payment (p<0.05).
Conclusion: There were differences by age in the awareness of dental implant insurance, co-payments, number of applications, and insurance coverage. The perceptions on dental implant insurance by age showed that all age groups except for those over 90 years and older, they considered the insurance was just mediocre the most.
Keywords: Awareness, Dental implants, Elderly age, Insurance recipiency, Oral health
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2021; 43(3): 124-131
Published online September 30, 2021 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2021.43.3.124
Copyright © Korean Academy of Dental Technology.
한민수, 권은자, 최에스더
혜전대학교 치기공과
Min Soo Han , Eun Ja Kwon
, Esther Choi
Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Hyejeon College, Hongseong, Korea
Correspondence to:Min Soo Han
Department of Dental Laboratory Technology, Hyejeon College, 19 Daehak 1-gil, Hongseong-eup, Hongseong-gun 32244, Korea E-mail: ceramic2002@hj.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-2913
*This paper was supported by grant from Hyejeon College, 2020.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the perception of dental implant insurance supply and demand for the elderly living in Hongseong-gun and Chungcheongnam-do, as well as the selection criteria regarding dental clinics for dental implant treatment to collect basic data for improving the oral health of the elderly population.
Methods: Participants living in Hongseong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do who were at least 55 years old from November 2020 to March 2021 were included in this study. The chi-square test was performed to examine the age-specific perception of insurance-covered dental implants (p<0.05).
Results: The age group that was the most interested in implants was the 70s age group, and the difference between this age group and the other age groups was statistically significant. Those in their 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s or older paid about 600,000 won including dental implants covered by insurance, and there was a significant difference (p<0.05). Those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s estimated the highest value of implants covered by insurance as two and showed a significant difference (p<0.05). The awareness of the dental implant insurance by age showed that all age groups, except for the ≥90 years age group, considered the insurance to be mediocre mostly due to the large co-payment (p<0.05).
Conclusion: There were differences by age in the awareness of dental implant insurance, co-payments, number of applications, and insurance coverage. The perceptions on dental implant insurance by age showed that all age groups except for those over 90 years and older, they considered the insurance was just mediocre the most.
Keywords: Awareness, Dental implants, Elderly age, Insurance recipiency, Oral health
Table 1 . General characteristics of the study subjects by age (N =118).
Characteristics | N (%) |
---|---|
Gender | |
Woman | 77 (65.25) |
Man | 41 (34.75) |
Age | |
Under 60 | 5 (4.24) |
60s | 21 (17.80) |
70s | 41(34.75) |
80s | 44 (37.29) |
90s and older | 7 (5.93) |
Occupation | |
Agriculture | 77 (65.25) |
Other | 31 (26.27) |
Professional | 7 (5.93) |
Prefer not to answer | 3 (2.54) |
Table 2 . Comparison of awareness of insurance dental implants by age (N=118).
Feature | N (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Under 60 | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s and older | Total | p-value | |
Awareness | Aware of it | - | 3 (14.29) | 4 (9.76) | 8 (9.09) | 1 (14.29) | 16 (13.56) | 0.031 |
Thought about it | 2 (40.00) | 8 (38.10) | 13 (31.71) | 16 (36.36) | - | 39 (33.05) | ||
Very interested | 2 (40.00) | 9 (42.86) | 22 (53.66) | 12 (27.27) | 2 (28.57) | 47 (39.98) | ||
Do not know | 1 (20.00) | 1 (4.76) | 2 (4.88) | 8 (18.18) | 4 (57.14) | 16 (13.56) | ||
Post hoc result | ab | a | a | ab | b | |||
Copayment | 200,000 won | 5 (100.00) | 5 (23.81) | 9 (21.95) | 7 (15.91) | 2 (28.57) | 28 (23.73) | 0.006 |
400,000 won | - | 10 (47.62) | 12 (29.27) | 7 (15.91) | 2 (28.57) | 31 (26.27) | ||
600,000 won | - | 3 (14.29) | 18 (43.90) | 21 (47.73) | 3 (42.86) | 45 (38.14) | ||
Free | - | 3 (14.29) | 2 (4.88) | 8 (18.18) | - | 13 (11.02) | ||
No idea | - | - | - | 1 (2.27) | - | 1 (0.84) | ||
Post hoc result | a | b | bc | c | abc | |||
Number of implants insured | 1 | - | 4 (19.05) | 5 (12.20) | 5 (11.36) | 3 (42.85) | 17 (14.41) | 0.001 |
2 | - | 8 (38.10) | 26 (63.41) | 29 (65.91) | 3 (42.85) | 66 (55.93) | ||
3 | 5 (100.00) | 4 (19.05) | 7 (17.07) | 4 (9.10) | - | 20 (16.95) | ||
More than 4 | - | 5 (23.81) | 3 (7.32) | 6 (13.64) | 1 (14.29) | 15 (12.71) | ||
Post hoc result | a | b | b | b | b |
Table 3 . Comparison of attitudes toward the dental implant and its surgery by age (N=118).
Feature | N (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Under 60 | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s and older | Total | p-value | |
Experience | Yes | 1 (20.00) | 9 (42.86) | 13 (31.70) | 5 (12.82) | - | 28 (23.73) | 0.020 |
No | 4 (80.00) | 12 (57.14) | 28 (68.30) | 39 (87.18) | 7 (100.00) | 90 (76.27) | ||
Reason for implant surgery | Healthy food intake | 4 (80.00) | 21 (100.00) | 34 (82.93) | 41 (93.18) | 6 (85.71) | 106 (89.83) | 0.758 |
Family suggestion | - | - | 2 (4.88) | 1 (2.27) | - | 3 (2.54) | ||
Economic factor | 1 (20.00) | - | 4 (9.76) | 2 (4.45) | 1 (14.29) | 8 (6.78) | ||
Other | - | - | 1 (2.44) | - | - | 1 (0.84) | ||
Reasons for no implant surgery | Living condition | 2 (40.00) | 10 (47.62) | 21 (51.22) | 16 (36.36) | 5 (71.43) | 54 (45.76) | 0.780 |
Opinions from surrounding | 1 (20.00) | 4 (19.05) | 11 (26.83) | 9 (20.45) | - | 25 (21.19) | ||
Dental treatment issue | 1 (20.00) | 3 (14.39) | 3 (7.32) | 6 (13.35) | 1 (14.29) | 14 (11.86) | ||
Other | 1 (20.00) | 4 (19.05) | 6 (14.63) | 13 (29.55) | 1 (14.29) | 25 (21.19) | ||
Decision maker | Recipient-self | 5 (100.00) | 18 (85.71) | 34 (82.93) | 31 (70.45) | 3 (42.86) | 91 (77.12) | 0.320 |
Guardian not living together | - | 1 (4.76) | 4 (9.76) | 7 (15.91) | 2 (28.58) | 14 (11.86) | ||
Guardian living together | - | 2 (9.52) | 3 (7.32) | 6 (13.64) | 2 (28.58) | 13 (11.40) |
Table 4 . Comparison on awareness of dental implant insurance recipiency by the age group (N=118).
Feature | N (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Under 60 | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s and older | Total | p-value | |
Insurance recipiency | Living condition | 2 (40.00) | 7 (31.82) | 5 (12.20) | 16 (36.36) | 3 (42.86) | 33 (27.97) | 0.383 |
Age 65 years and higher | 2 (40.00) | 12 (54.55) | 31 (75.61) | 21 (47.73) | 3 (42.86) | 69 (58.48) | ||
Disabilities in movement | 1 (20.00) | 1 (4.55) | 2 (4.88) | 5 (11.36) | 1 (14.29) | 10 (8.47) | ||
Others | - | 1 (4.55) | 3 (7.32) | 2 (4.55) | - | 6 (5.08) | ||
Opinion on insurance | Exceptional | - | 4 (19.05) | 3 (9.76) | 3 (6.82) | - | 10 (8.47) | 0.002 |
Good | 1 (20.00) | - | 13 (31.71) | 10 (22.73) | 1 (14.29) | 25 (21.19) | ||
Mediocre | 3 (60.00) | 16 (76.19) | 21 (51.22) | 22 (50.00) | 1 (14.29) | 63 (53.39) | ||
Not interested | 1 (20.00) | 1 (4.76) | 4 (9.76) | 9 (20.45) | 5 (71.43) | 20 (16.95) | ||
Post hoc result | abc | a | b | bc | c |
Table 5 . Selection of hospitals and clinics by age (N=118).
Feature | N (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Under 60 | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s and older | Total | p-value | |
Preferred location | Vicinity of Hongseong-gun | 2 (40.00) | 6 (28.57) | 19 (46.34) | 20 (45.45) | 6 (85.71) | 53 (44.92) | 0.218 |
Cities other than Hongseong-gun | 2 (40.00) | 6 (28.57) | 6 (14.63) | 6 (13.64) | 1 (14.29) | 21 (17.80) | ||
Doesn't matter | 1 (20.00) | 9 (42.86) | 16 (39.02) | 18 (40.91) | - | 44 (37.29) | ||
Location requirements | Recommended by acquaintances | 1 (20.00) | 5 (23.81) | 19 (46.34) | 15 (34.10) | 1 (14.29) | 46 (38.98) | 0.094 |
Near residence | 2 (40.00) | 13 (61.90) | 13 (31.71) | 26 (59.10) | 5 (71.43) | 59 (50.00) | ||
Avoiding poor surgeon | 2 (40.00) | 3 (14.29) | 9 (21.95) | 3 (6.82) | 1 (14.29) | 18 (15.25) | ||
Surrounding requirements | Accessibility of public transport | 4 (80.00) | 17 (80.95) | 28 (68.29) | 30 (68.18) | 3 (42.86) | 82 (69.49) | 0.533 |
Proximity to guardian | 1 (20.00) | 4 (19.05) | 12 (29.27) | 11 (25.00) | 4 (57.14) | 32 (27.19) | ||
Other | - | - | 1 (2.44) | 3 (6.81) | - | 4 (3.39) | ||
Selection requirements | Dentist's skills | 3 (60.00) | 15 (71.43) | 32 (78.05) | 30 (68.18) | 4 (57.14) | 84 (71.19) | 0.885 |
Treatment cost | 2 (40.00) | 6 (28.57) | 9 (21.95) | 13 (29.55) | 3 (42.86) | 33 (27.97) | ||
Other | - | - | - | 1 (2.27) | - | 1 (0.84) | ||
Proper distance | Within 30 minutes | 1 (20.00) | 5 (23.81) | 19 (46.34) | 20 (45.45) | 5 (71.43) | 50 (42.37) | 0.277 |
Within 1 hour | 4 (80.00) | 11 (52.38) | 16 (39.02) | 16 (36.36) | 2 (28.57) | 49 (41.53) | ||
Doesn't matter | - | 5 (23.81) | 6 (14.63) | 8 (18.18) | - | 19 (16.10) | ||
Building requirements | First floor | 3 (60.00) | 4 (19.05) | 16 (39.02) | 10 (22.73) | 6 (85.71) | 39 (33.05) | 0.002 |
Second floor | 1 (20.00) | 1 (5.76) | 1 (2.44) | - | - | 3 (2.54) | ||
Doesn't matter if there is an elevator | 1 (20.00) | 16 (76.19) | 24 (58.54) | 34 (77.27) | 1 (14.29) | 76 (64.41) | ||
Post hoc result | ab | ac | abc | c | d |
Min Jeong Cho
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(4): 166-173 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.4.166Sung-Min Kim
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(2): 21-27 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.2.21Min-Ho Hong
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2022; 44(3): 67-75 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2022.44.3.67