METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 92 preschool children (4-6 years) were invited to participate with their parents/guardians. Nine parameters of toothbrushing behaviour were assessed from parental responses (questionnaire) and observation of child and parents/guardians (video recording). Oral examination included recording plaque, gingival and dental caries indices. BORIS software was used to assess toothbrushing parameters and Smart PLS was used to perform association with a second-generation multivariate analysis to create models with and without confounding factors.
RESULTS: Girls were slightly more (53%) than boys (47%). Children aged 4 years were slightly more in number (38%), followed by 6-year-olds and 5-year-olds. Nearly, 90% parents had tertiary education and 46% had more than 2 children. Differences were recorded in the reported and observed behaviour. Thirty-five percent parents/guardians reported using pea-size toothpaste amount but only 28% were observed. Forty percent reported to brush for 30 s-1 min, however 51% were observed to brush for 1-2 min. Half the children were observed to use fluoridated toothpaste (F oral health of preschool children.
CONCLUSIONS: Preschool children's toothbrushing behaviour was inadequate while their oral health was poor, with a significant association between the two parameters.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-nine children were recruited in this study that were allocated randomly into each group with twenty children as follows: group 1: pictorial, group 2: video, and group 3: control. Mean plaque and gingival scores were noted before and after the use of different interventions. Oral hygiene was categorized as "excellent," "good," and "fair." Gingival health was categorized as "healthy," "mild gingivitis," and "moderate gingivitis."
Results: Thirty-four children (57.6%) were from 12-13 years of age bracket, and 25 (42.4%) belonged to 14-16 years of age. Regarding gender, there were 37 (62.7%) males and 22 (37.3%) females. About comparison of mean gingival and plaque scores before and after interventions in each group, a significant difference was found in group 1 (p < 0.001) and group 2 (p < 0.001), as compared to group 3 where the difference in scores was not significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Maintaining oral health requires the compliance of individuals to perform different methods of preventive dentistry, such as tooth brushing and use of dental floss. The use of different oral hygiene educational interventions such as pictorial and video methods have been proven and useful for hearing impaired children in improving oral health.
Methods: One hundred and eighty-eight healthy subjects aged between 18 and 50 years with varying oral hygiene status who gave consent to participate were included in this cross-sectional study. The subjects were recruited from primary oral health care of MAHSA University. Oral hygiene of all the participants was measured using Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Stimulated saliva collected using paraffin wax was analyzed for salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium. The relationship between salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium levels with OHI-S was assessed using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient; the strength of relationship was assessed by multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found a weak positive correlation (r = 0.179, p = 0.014) between salivary statherin and OHI-S; weak negative correlation (r = -0.187, p = 0.010) between salivary aPRP and OHI-S; and moderate negative correlation between salivary statherin and salivary aPRP levels (r = -0.50, p oral hygiene is associated with increased statherin and reduced aPRP levels in saliva. Thus, these salivary components may have a role in predicting oral hygiene status.
METHODS: Two villages were selected as the sampling frame based on prevalence of tobacco and betel quid chewing habit. Respondents were asked to check their mouth for presence of lesion or abnormalities. Education on oral cancer, including MSE, was provided. Subsequently, respondents were asked to perform MSE. Finally, a clinical oral examination (COE) was done by a specialist and the presence of oral mucosal lesions was recorded.
RESULTS: Almost 64.5 percent of respondents exhibited high levels of difficulty and low mucosal visualization and retracting ability, whereas 3.0 percent demonstrated high attention level when performing MSE. Prevalence of oral mucosal lesions was 59.0 percent, whereas the prevalence of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) was 9.0 percent. Detection of oral lesions by respondents using MSE was lower than detection by the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity of MSE for detection of all types of lesions were 8.6 and 95.0 percent respectively. When analyzing each lesion type separately, MSE was found to be most sensitive in detection of swellings (10.0 percent), and most specific in identifying white lesions (97.8 percent). For detection of OPMDs, although specificity was high (98.9 percent), sensitivity (0 percent), and +LR (0) was poor.
CONCLUSION: MSE is not an effective self-screening tool for early detection of potentially malignant lesions for this population.