METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in ten different dental hospitals of Pakistan. The one-way ANOVA test was used to analyze patient's demographic distribution with PSR-OHS and oral functions. The complex sample general linear model was used to determine association between clinical OH and PSR-OHS. Analyses of each age group were conducted separately.
RESULTS: A total of 1,804 outdoor patients participated in the study, out of which 660 were young adults, 685 adults and 459 were older adults. Overall self-perception of all age groups about their oral health was 'good' (mean = 3.71). Female gender and education status were a significant factor in young adults and adults. Family income affected PSR-OHS of only the adult age group. Frequent visit to dental clinic and preventive reason of dental attendance were associated with good PSR-OHS. DMFT score, prosthesis score and periodontal score also affected the PSR-OHS of individuals. Association between PSR-OHS and clinical examination was confirmed by complex general linear model.
CONCLUSION: There are differences in the perceived oral health status of young adults, adults and older adults. The variables, age, education, family income, DMFT score, prosthesis score and periodontal score directly influence the self-perception of individuals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 154 first-time mothers in the third trimester of pregnancy who attended two health clinics in the state of Sarawak, Malaysia for antenatal care participated in this cross-sectional study. A structured selfadministered questionnaire was used to measure the variables of interest.
RESULTS: Most mothers could correctly identify the aetiological factors of dental caries and strategies for preventing the disease in children. However, a substantial portion could not identify certain cariogenic and noncariogenic foods or drinks. Most pregnant women have appropriate attitudes towards children's oral health although some showed unfavourable attitude about care of primary teeth. Women who were older and had attended a talk on children's oral health were more likely to have higher mean knowledge score than their respective counterparts, and higher mean knowledge score was associated with higher mean attitude score.
CONCLUSION: Most first-time mothers in this study had correct knowledge and favourable attitude about children's oral health, although misunderstandings and misperceptions in several issues were also common. Significant association found between experience of attending oral health talk and oral health knowledge, and between oral health knowledge and attitude, substantiate the importance of an educational intervention program to optimise the mothers' roles in caries prevention in children.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.
SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias. No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for school dental screening in improving dental attendance. We are uncertain whether traditional screening is better than no screening (very low-certainty evidence). Criteria-based screening may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening (low-certainty evidence). However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence). For children requiring treatment, personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific referral letters (very low-certainty evidence). Screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' is better than a standard referral letter (very low-certainty evidence) or whether specific referral to a dental treatment facility is better than a generic advice letter to visit the dentist (very low-certainty evidence). The trials included in this review evaluated effects of school dental screening in the short term. None of them evaluated its effectiveness for improving oral health or addressed possible adverse effects or costs.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review the wide range of data and literatures related to siwak practice and its effect on periodontal health.
METHOD: The review was conducted based on scoping review techniques, searching literature in EBSCOHOST, PubMed, SCOPUS and Google scholar databases using the following search terms: "siwak' or 'miswak' or 'chewing stick" for intervention, and "periodontium or 'periodontal' or 'periodontal health' or 'periodontal disease" for outcome. Articles published between January 1990 to March 2021 and written in English language were included.
RESULTS: A total of 721 articles collected from the search and 21 of them were eligible for the final analysis. Results of this study was described based on clinical and antibacterial reporting of siwak, method of siwak practice and its adverse effect on oral health. Siwak was found effective at removing dental plaque and improving periodontal health over time although its effect on subgingival microbiota was inconclusive. Presence of gingival recession and clinical attachment loss were much more commonly reported in siwak users, attributable to variations in the methods employed for tooth cleaning using the siwak.
CONCLUSION: There is substantial evidence that the lack of standardised reporting for effective siwak use may have resulted in contradictory findings about its oral hygiene benefits and adverse effects. As such, future work on safe and effective siwak practice is to be advocated among its users.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically review published evidence on the effectiveness of CAL in disseminating oral health care information to patients and caregivers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured comprehensive search was undertaken among 7 electronic databases (PUBMED, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, SCOPUS, WEB of SCIENCE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) to identify relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included in this review. Papers were screened by 2 independent reviewers, and studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for further assessment.
RESULTS: A total of 2915 papers were screened, and full texts of 53 potentially relevant papers (κ = 0.885) were retrieved. A total of 5 studies that met the inclusion criteria (1 RCT, 1 quasi-experimental study, and 3 post-intervention studies) were identified. Outcome measures included knowledge, attitude, behavior, and oral health. Significant improvements in clinical oral health parameters (P oral health behaviors and confidence.
CONCLUSION: There is a limited number of studies which have examined the effectiveness of CAL interventions for oral health care among patients and caregivers. Synthesis of the data suggests that CAL has positive impacts on knowledge, attitude, behavior, and oral health. Further high- quality studies on the effectiveness of CAL in promoting oral health are warranted.