to the possibility of not obtaining required care because of inadequate civilian facilities for non-whites, some association may be inferred from the catch-all alternative "other reasons" to which 18% of the non-whites responded (as against 11% of the enlisted whites). Consider further that the higher incidence of response to "care was not required" by dependents of non-white enlisted personnel may be attributable to the lower degree of their awareness of dental disability because of lack of dependents' visits to a dentist.

It is apparent from Table 5 that little difference exists between wives of military and civilian sponsors in the same Grade Groups in type of care obtained. However, major differences are found when treatment is compared by Grade Group. For example, wives of Grade Group I sponsors obtain a larger proportion of every type preventive care (check-ups, fillings, cleaning) than those in other Grade Groups. This relationship by Grade Group of sponsor holds true for children but here,

as seen from Table 6 for age group 5

14, civilian children

had a greater proportion of preventive dental care.

When availability of specialized dental care was considered, (Table 7) about two-thirds of both military and civilians

indicated that they had not required specialized care for their dependents in the past year. For those who did require

such care, the degree of availability was directly a function

of the size of the community; the more densely urban the

community, the greater the likelihood of specialist being available.

Further comparisons of the military and civilian samples developed that both samples usually had 12 weeks' wait on the average for appointments but that military dependents travelled on the average 12 miles further to a civilian dentist than their civilian counterparts.

There is an additional factor with a direct bearing on availability of civilian dentists, worth mentioning at this juncture. In some instances, military dependents seem to be disadvantaged by the fact of their temporary geographic separation from their sponsor; in other cases, the mere transient status of the military may place the dependent at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the "permanent" local civilian population.

The results of the survey showed that only 32% of the service families had been at their present location for over two years, whereas 86% of the civilians, at the time of the sample, had been in the current location for more than two years. In addition, the military had moved their families on the average, 1.4 times in the last four years and 8% of the military families were not residing with their sponsor. It is readily