B Jönsson1, K Ohrn, N Oscarson, P Lindberg. 1. Department of Public Health and Caring Science, Uppsala University, Sweden. birgitta.jonsson@lul.se
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of an individually tailored oral health educational programme for oral hygiene self-care in patients with chronic periodontitis compared with the standard treatment. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, controlled trial with two different active treatments were used with 113 subjects (60 females and 53 males) randomly allocated to an experimental or a control group. The individually tailored oral health educational programme was based on cognitive behavioural principles and the individual tailoring for each participant was based on participants' thoughts, intermediate, and long-term goals, and oral health status. The effect of the programmes on gingivitis [gingival index (GI)], oral hygiene [plaque indices (PlI) and self-report], and participants' global rating of treatment was evaluated 3 and 12 months after oral health education and non-surgical treatment. RESULTS: Between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, the experimental group improved both GI and PlI more than the control group. The mean gain-score difference was 0.27 for global GI [99.2% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.39, p<0.001] and 0.40 for proximal GI (99.2% CI: 0.27-0.53, p<0.001). The mean gain-score difference was 0.16 for global PlI (99.2% CI: 0.03-0.30, p=0.001), and 0.26 for proximal PlI (99.2% CI: 0.10-0.43, p<0.001). The subjects in the experimental group reported a higher frequency of daily inter-dental cleaning and were more certain that they could maintain the attained level of behaviour change. CONCLUSION: The individually tailored oral health educational programme was efficacious in improving long-term adherence to oral hygiene in periodontal treatment. The largest difference was for interproximal surfaces.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of an individually tailored oral health educational programme for oral hygiene self-care in patients with chronic periodontitis compared with the standard treatment. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, controlled trial with two different active treatments were used with 113 subjects (60 females and 53 males) randomly allocated to an experimental or a control group. The individually tailored oral health educational programme was based on cognitive behavioural principles and the individual tailoring for each participant was based on participants' thoughts, intermediate, and long-term goals, and oral health status. The effect of the programmes on gingivitis [gingival index (GI)], oral hygiene [plaque indices (PlI) and self-report], and participants' global rating of treatment was evaluated 3 and 12 months after oral health education and non-surgical treatment. RESULTS: Between baseline and the 12-month follow-up, the experimental group improved both GI and PlI more than the control group. The mean gain-score difference was 0.27 for global GI [99.2% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.39, p<0.001] and 0.40 for proximal GI (99.2% CI: 0.27-0.53, p<0.001). The mean gain-score difference was 0.16 for global PlI (99.2% CI: 0.03-0.30, p=0.001), and 0.26 for proximal PlI (99.2% CI: 0.10-0.43, p<0.001). The subjects in the experimental group reported a higher frequency of daily inter-dental cleaning and were more certain that they could maintain the attained level of behaviour change. CONCLUSION: The individually tailored oral health educational programme was efficacious in improving long-term adherence to oral hygiene in periodontal treatment. The largest difference was for interproximal surfaces.
Authors: Vadim V Tachalov; Lyudmila Y Orekhova; Elena R Isaeva; Tatyana V Kudryavtseva; Ekaterina S Loboda; Evgenya V Sitkina Journal: EPMA J Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 6.543
Authors: Jennifer B McClure; Karin R Riggs; Jackie St John; Barbara Cerutti; Susan Zbikowski Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: P M Preshaw; A L Alba; D Herrera; S Jepsen; A Konstantinidis; K Makrilakis; R Taylor Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 10.122