INTRODUCTION: This study explores the relationship between single motherhood during pregnancy and dental caries, considering factors like socioeconomic status and oral health practices. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized data from the NHANES cycles 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were positive pregnancy status, age 20-44 years, complete survey response, and completion of the dental health component. Participants were analyzed based on the presence or absence of active decay. The key independent variable was relationship status (pregnant single mother (single/widowed/divorced) vs. pregnant partnered (married/living with partner). Variables included age, race/ethnicity, poverty income ratio, education level, history of high blood pressure, health insurance status, smoking status, sugar intake, and timing of the last dental visit. Statistical methods included descriptive analysis and crude and adjusted logistic regression models, utilizing SAS-9.4 to account for NHANES' sampling design. RESULTS: Crude analysis indicated that partnered pregnant individuals had a higher prevalence of untreated dental caries (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) compared to single pregnant individuals. However, this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.26). Significant predictors were lower income, education, and smoking status. DISCUSSION: After adjusting for confounders, single motherhood alone was not a statistically significant predictor of dental caries. However, lower income, lower education levels, smoking status, and infrequent dental visits were significant predictors. These findings highlight the need for targeted public health interventions that address socioeconomic determinants, improve educational opportunities, provide financial support, and integrate oral health education into prenatal care programs.

Le régime de cession des droits sociaux applicable des entre les membres d’une même famille est certes privilégié. Mais le législateur ne prend en compte que certains d’entre eux, à savoir, les ascendants, les descendants et certains collatéraux. Pourtant, les parts sociales ou actions font parties des biens patrimoniaux de la famille. Cette mise en société sert de prétexte à une meilleure gestion du patrimoine familial, mais aussi à sa cession au sein de la famille. L’objectif souvent non avoué est la pérennisation de l’entreprise familiale au sein de la famille. Toutefois, législateur ne reconnait toujours pas tous les types de schémas familiaux contemporains. Et pour cause, la notion de famille n’est pas définie en droit. Pourtant cette définition serait bien utile pour soumettre les cessions entre proches à un régime bien spécifique. La conséquence est que la pratique des affaires a développée quantité de règles pour permettre aux associés familiaux soit de rester ensemble au sein de la société ou d’en sortir. En effet, les aléas de la vie familiale commandent les cessions. Ce sont souvent des pactes extra-statutaires qui servent de support à la cession des titres. Le problème est qu’ils n’engagent que leurs signataires. Autrement dit, les associés familiaux non signataires de ces pactes ne sont pas concernés par ceux-ci. Pourtant, ils font partie de la même société et de la même famille. Peuvent-ils pour autant élever contestation en justice ? Car à bien des égards, ces pactes sont souvent à la frontière de l’illégalité notamment celle de l’interdiction des pactes sur succession future. Alors, la liberté de cession du cédant serait-elle empêchée dans le cadre d’une société familiale ? L’élément de réponse se trouve sans doute dans la consécration du pacte de famille, un nouvel outil juridique autonome destiné à compléter efficacement les statuts de la société. / The system of transfer of the corporate holdings of the company applicable between members of the same family is certainly privileged. But the legislator only takes into account some of them namely, ascendants, descendants and some collaterals. However, shares or stocks are part of the family's patrimonial assets. This incorporation serves as a pretext for better management of the family patrimony, but also for its transfer within the family. The often unstated aim is the sustainability of the family business within the family. However, legislator still does not recognize all types of contemporary family patterns. And for good reason, the notion of family is not defined in law. Yet this definition would be very useful to submit the transfers between relatives to a specific regime. The consequence is that business practice has developed a lot of rules to allow family partners to either stay together in society or get out of it. Indeed, the vagaries of family life command shares disposal. These are often extra-statutory pacts that serve as a support for the sale of securities. The problem is that they only commit their signatories. In other words, non-signatory family members of these pacts are not affected by them. Yet they are part of the same company and the same family. Can they raise a challenge in court? Because in many ways, these pacts are often on the borderline of illegality, including the prohibition of pacts respecting a future succession. Could the transferor's freedom of assignment be prevented in the context of a family company? The element of response is undoubtedly in the consecration of the family pact, a new independent legal tool designed to effectively supplement the company statutes.