METHODS: A cross-sectional survey including 706 six-year-old children was conducted in 2017 in Benghazi, Libya. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire assessing socioeconomic status and oral health behaviours, and the Arabic version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (A-ECOHIS) to assess the OHRQoL. Clinical examination assessed caries experience at tooth level (dmft) and the number of decayed, missing due to caries and filled teeth (dt, mt and ft). Poisson regression analysis was performed to determine the association between dmft scores and the independent predictors. Linear regression analysis was conducted for ECOHIS scores with the children's gender, SES and OHB. The statistical significance was set to ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: Data were available for 706 children. Caries prevalence (dt) and dmft of ≥ 1 were 69.1% and 71% respectively. The mean ± SD dmft score was 3.23 ± 3.32. There was a significant and direct association between dmft scores and daily consumption of sugary snacks (B = 1.27, P = 0.011) and a significant inverse association with teethbrushing twice daily (B = 0.80, P = 0.041). There was a significant and direct association between A-ECOHIS and dmft (B = 1.14, P ≤ 0.001) and a significant and inverse association between A- ECOHIS and high and intermediate family income compared to low income (B = -3.82, P = 0.0001 and B = -2.06, P = 0.028).
CONCLUSIONS: 6-year-old Libyan children had a relatively high caries experience an untreated decay with impact on OHRQoL. Social disparities, sugar consumption patterns and oral hygiene practices were associated with high caries experience.
METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched for eligible studies from the Inception of database until March 2022 to examine the effect estimates of the association between perceptions of harmfulness and addictiveness and overall e-cigarette usage among adolescents and youth.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed that in comparison to non-users, young people who were ever e-cigarette users were two times more likely to disagree that e-cigarettes are harmful (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.41-3.43) and perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than tobacco cigarettes (OR: 2.01, 95% CI 1.47-2.75). Youths who were ever e-cigarette users were also 2.3 and 1.8 times more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less addictive (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.81-2.88) or perceive e-cigarettes as more addictive (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.22-2.73) than tobacco cigarettes, as compared with non-users. The subgroup analysis reported that adolescents were more likely to believe that e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, while youth users perceived otherwise.
CONCLUSION: the risk perceptions of e-cigarettes are associated with e-cigarette use among adolescents and youth and could be the focus of health promotion to prevent and curb the uptake of e-cigarettes among young people.
METHODS: The study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the opinions of secondary school students on the SDS implementation in their schools. Data from focus group discussions involving Form Two (14-year-olds) and Form Four (16-year-olds) students from the selected schools were transcribed verbatim and coded using the NVivo software before framework method analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Among the strengths of the SDS were the convenience for students to undergo annual oral examination and dental treatment without having to visit dental clinics outside the school. The SDS also reduced possible financial burdens resulting from dental treatment costs, especially among students from low-income families. Furthermore, SDS helped to improve oral health awareness. However, the oral health education provided by the SDS personnel was deemed infrequent while the content and method of delivery were perceived to be less interesting. The poor attitude of the SDS personnel was also reported by the students.
CONCLUSION: The SDS provides effective and affordable dental care to secondary school students. However, the oral health promotion and education activities need to be improved to keep up with the evolving needs of the target audience.
METHODS: Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with Form 2 (14-years-old) and Form 4 (16-years-old) students from selected secondary schools in Selangor using a semi-structured topic guide until data saturation was reached. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework method analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 10 FGDs were conducted involving 77 adolescents. The motivators for good oral hygiene self-care were appearance, fear of oral disease, consequences of oral disease and past toothache experience. The barriers for oral hygiene self-care were poor attitude towards oral care, lack of confidence in toothbrushing skills, snacking habit and the taste of toothpaste.
CONCLUSION: Understanding the motivators and barriers to adolescents' oral hygiene self-care is the first step in designing effective oral health education messages. The findings from this study can be used as a guide for oral health education programmes and development of materials that fulfil the needs of the adolescent population.