METHODS: Validated translated versions of the Hiroshima University-Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) questionnaire were administered to 1,096 final-year dental students in 17 countries. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted within the data to detect patterns and groupings.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 72%. The cluster analysis identified two main groups among the countries. Group 1 consisted of twelve countries: one Oceanic (Australia), one Middle-Eastern (Israel), seven European (Northern Ireland, England, Finland, Greece, Germany, Italy, and France) and three Asian (Korea, Thailand and Malaysia) countries. Group 2 consisted of five countries: one South American (Brazil), one European (Belgium) and three Asian (China, Indonesia and Japan) countries. The percentages of 'agree' responses in three HU-DBI questionnaire items were significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 1. They include: "I worry about the colour of my teeth."; "I have noticed some white sticky deposits on my teeth."; and "I am bothered by the colour of my gums."
CONCLUSION: Grouping the countries into international clusters yielded useful information for dentistry and dental education.
METHODS: This intervention study was conducted in Araihazar Thana, Narayanganj district, Bangladesh during April 2012 to March 2013. The total participants were 944 students from three local schools. At baseline, students were assessed for oral health knowledge, attitude and practices using a self-administered structured questionnaire and untreated dental caries was assessed using clinical examination. Follow up study was done after 6 months from baseline. McNemar's chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the impact of OHE program on four recurrent themes of oral health between the baseline and follow-up. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine the impact of the intervention group on our outcome variables.
RESULTS: Significant improvement was observed regarding school aged adolescents' self-reported higher knowledge, attitude and practices scores (p < 0.001) at follow-up compared with baseline. The prevalence of untreated dental caries of the study population after the OHE program was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced to 42.5 %. Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that the OHE intervention remained a significant predictor in reducing the risk of untreated dental caries (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] =0.51; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.37, 0.81). In the follow-up period participants were 2.21 times (95 % CI = 1.87, 3.45) more likely to have higher level of knowledge regarding oral health compared to baseline. Compared with baseline participants in the follow-up were 1.89 times (95 % CI = 1.44-2.87) more likely to have higher attitude towards oral health. In addition, OHE intervention was found to be significantly associated with higher level of practices toward oral health (AOR = 1.64; 95 % CI = 1.12, 3.38).
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that OHE intervention was effective in increasing i) knowledge, ii) attitude, and iii) practices towards oral health; it also significantly reduced the prevalence of untreated dental caries among school aged adolescents from grade 6-8 in a deprived rural area of Bangladesh.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 20 IFPP (mean age 47.0; SD 12.9 years) and 28 ISOD (mean age 61.5; SD 9.1 years) patients received 2 mandibular implants. Metal ceramic nonsplinted fixed prostheses were provided in IFPP group, while in ISOD group, the mandibular overdentures were retained by nonsplinted attachments. Patients rated their oral health-related quality of life using OHIP-14 Malaysian version at baseline (T0), 2-3 months (T1) and 1 year (T2) postimplant treatment. Mean OHIP-14 for total and domain scores between groups and intervals was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for the comparison of mean score change and effect size, while the association between pre- and post-treatment scores was determined using multivariate linear regression modelling.
RESULTS: The total OHIP and domain scores before implant treatment were significantly higher (lower OHRQoL) in IFPP than in ISOD groups, except for physical pain where this domain showed similar impact in both groups. Postimplant scores between groups at T1 and T2 showed no significant difference. The mean score changes at T0-T1 and T0-T2 for total OHIP-14 and domains were significantly greater in IFPP except in the domains of physical pain and disability which showed no difference. Large effect size (ES) was observed for total OHIP-14 in IFPP while moderate in ISOD. Improved OHRQoL was dependent on the treatment group and pretreatment score.
CONCLUSION: Improvement in OHRQoL occurred following both mandibular implant-supported overdentures and implant fixed partial prostheses.
METHODS: The Khadijah Rohani's Readability Formula (KRRF) and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument were used to assess the readability and suitability of the pamphlets respectively. All 23 Bahasa Malaysia pamphlets retrieved from the official portal of OHP on the 31st January 2019 were assessed for suitability. However, only five pamphlets were found to be eligible for readability assessment because the KRRF, the single formula available for Bahasa Malaysia text is applicable only for materials with 300 words or more. The readability is interpreted based on the level of formal education in Malaysia.
RESULTS: All pamphlets achieved superior suitability rating with a minimum and maximum score of 75% and 95% respectively. However, a few pamphlets did not fulfil SAM superior and adequate criteria for the following factors and were rated not suitable: did not include summary (73.9%), have few or no headers (4.3%), did not use captions to explain graphics (17.4%), and did not provide interactive learning (21.7%). Readability of the pamphlets eligible for assessment ranged from primary six to secondary three.
CONCLUSIONS: OHE pamphlets produced by the MOH are readable by most Malaysians. Most pamphlets are generally suitable for the intended audience although a few performed poorly in several areas.
METHODS: An interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study design was used to recruit a purposive sample of foster carers in Tower Hamlets, United Kingdom, from a range of backgrounds (maximum variation sampling). Participants were aged 21 years and older and provided full-time foster care for children for a minimum of 1 year. The foster carers took part in focus groups that were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed a five-step IPA process, which included reading the transcripts, note taking, identifying emerging themes, connecting related themes and writing up the final themes. Iterative data gathering and analysis continued to reach thematic saturation.
RESULTS: Three focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 12 foster carers. Eight of the 12 participants had fostered children for more than 10 years and they were currently fostering 22 children aged five to 18 years old. Four themes emerged from within the context of the supportive and nurturing foster family environment that described how foster carers' responded to and managed the oral health of their foster children. Foster carers had adopted an oral health caregiving role, "in loco parentis" responding to the poor oral health of their vulnerable foster children. They were hypervigilant about establishing and monitoring children's oral health routines and taking their children to see a dentist; these were seen as an integral part of being good foster carers. They were knowledgeable about the causes of children's oral ill health, gained from their own dental experiences and from looking after their own children. Foster carers had experienced tensions while adopting this oral health caregiving role with dentists who had refused to see younger children. Foster carers had also experienced tensions with teenage foster children who questioned their parental authority and legitimate right to set rules about smoking and healthy eating.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore foster carers' oral health perspectives and the foster family environment within the oral health context. It highlights the unrecognized and important role that foster carers have in improving the oral health of vulnerable children. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between foster carers and dentists and to support the development of health and social care interventions to improve foster children's oral health.
Subjects and Methods: In an analytical cross-sectional design, we used simple random sampling technique to select 242 multiracial Malaysian male fishermen aged between 18 and 75 years from five fishing villages located at Gurney Drive, Tanjong Tokong, Tanjong Bungah, Batu Ferringhi, and Teluk Bahang to participate in this study. During four consecutive weekends in January 2017, we conducted face-to-face interviews with participants using a pre-validated, interviewer-administered WHO oral health questionnaire. We categorized participants as having "good" or "poor" oral health based on a mean cutoff score of 14. Multivariate regression models were fitted to assess the oral health status and associated lifestyle factors among the study population, using SPSS version 22.
Results: We achieved a response rate of 97.6%. Overall, the prevalence of poor oral health in this study was 47.5%. "Income" (RM/month), "type of fishing," "additional occupation," "age" (years), "frequency of pies, buns consumed," and "frequency of sweets, soft drinks consumed" were significant predictors of oral health status among the fishermen.
Conclusion: Poor oral health is relatively highly prevalent among the fishermen in our study. The oral health status of fishermen in Teluk Bahang was consistent with the national average and significantly associated with their sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Targeted interventions are required to arrest and reverse this trend.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomised control clinical trial at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya. A total of 66 obese patients with chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated into the treatment group (n=33) who received NSPT, while the control group (n=33) received no treatment. Four participants (2 from each group) were non-contactable 12 weeks post intervention. Therefore, their data were removed from the final analysis. The protocol involved questionnaires (characteristics and OHRQoL (Oral Health Impact Profile-14; OHIP-14)) and a clinical examination.
RESULTS: The OHIP prevalence of impact (PI), overall mean OHIP severity score (SS) and mean OHIP Extent of Impact (EI) at baseline and at the 12-week follow up were almost similar between the two groups and statistically not significant at (p=0.618), (p=0.573), and (p=0.915), respectively. However, in a within-group comparison, OHIP PI, OHIP SS, and OHIP EI showed a significant improvement for both treatment and control groups and the p values were ((0.002), (0.008) for PI), ((0.006) and (0.004) for SS) and ((0.006) and (0.002) for EI) in-treatment and control groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: NSPT did not significantly affect the OHRQoL among those obese with CP. Regardless, NSPT, functional limitation and psychological discomfort domains had significantly improved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( NCT02508415 ). Retrospectively registered on 2nd of April 2015.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 15 March 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 March 2017), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 15 March 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (four were cluster-RCTs) with 19,498 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Four trials were conducted in the UK and two were based in India. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, one trial to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the six trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases.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 found it to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported cost-effectiveness and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening, assessing follow-up periods of three to eight months. We found very low certainty evidence that was insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening there was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) improves dental attendance in comparison to screening alone.We did not find any trials addressing cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of school dental screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 150 subjects attending the Primary Care Unit with no history of orthodontic treatment. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) with 10 occlusal characteristics were measured on study models. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed with the Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the malocclusion and quality of life.
RESULTS: Significantly weak correlations (r = .176) were found between the DAI and the OHRQoL. Females and the younger age group (12-19 years) tended to score higher on the OHIP-14 than their counterparts. For males, domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .462), domain 4 (physical disability; r = .312), domain 7 (handicap; r = .309), and overall score (r = .289) were weak correlates but significant to the DAI compared with females. The older age group showed a significant weak correlation in domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .268) and domain 7 (handicap; r = .238), whereas the younger age group showed no correlation with any domain.
CONCLUSIONS: The DAI score does not predict the effect of malocclusion on the OHRQoL.