Background/Objectives: Formal oral-health entitlement does not necessarily imply available services or effective access. We examined whether the country-level association of basic restorative service availability with untreated caries in primary teeth among children aged 1–9 years differed by advanced-curative entitlement. Methods: Data for 2021 were harmonized from IHME, WHO, FAOSTAT, and the World Bank for 92 countries with complete data. Ordinary least squares regression with HC3-robust covariance included entitlement, reported restorative service availability, their prespecified interaction, log GDP per capita, sugar availability, and WHO region. Results: Mean untreated caries prevalence was 45.10% (SD, 7.60). The interaction was positive (β = 9.00 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.71–16.29; p = 0.016). Among countries without advanced-curative entitlement, availability was associated with lower prevalence (β = −6.62 pp; 95% CI, −12.23 to −1.02; p = 0.021). Compared with Yes/Available, the No/Available category had a 6.29 pp lower adjusted predicted prevalence (95% CI, −11.06 to −1.52; Holm-adjusted p = 0.031). The child-population-weighted interaction was not statistically significant (β = 6.11 pp; 95% CI, −1.01 to 13.24; p = 0.092). Conclusions: Entitlement and reported availability are clinically non-equivalent indicators and cannot establish policy–service alignment or effective access. Findings are ecological associations, not evidence of policy effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akgün et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: