| Literature DB >> 26539068 |
Badr Al-Tayar1, Mon Mon Tin-Oo1, Mohd Zulkarnian Sinor1, Mohammed Sultan Alakhali2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The traditional type of smokeless tobacco used in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly common in Yemen, is called shammah. This study aims to determine the prevalence of shammah use and its association with the development of periodontal pockets. Other associated factors with the development of periodontal pocket were also determined.Entities:
Keywords: Community Periodontal Index; Males; Periodontal pocket; Shammah; Smokeless tobacco
Year: 2015 PMID: 26539068 PMCID: PMC4632360 DOI: 10.1186/s12971-015-0061-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tob Induc Dis ISSN: 1617-9625 Impact factor: 2.600
Fig. 1Flow chart of sampling the participants residing in Dawan valley using multi-stage sampling method to obtain the calculated sample size
Comparison of socio-demographic characteristics, oral hygiene practice, and history of shammah use of periodontal and non-periodontal pockets among adult males in Dawan Valley, Yemen
| Variable | Periodontal pocket, | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absencea | Presenceb | |||
| 254 (73.4) | 92 (26.6) | |||
| Socio-demographic characteristics | ||||
| Age in years | ||||
| 18–29 | 96 (37.8) | 24 (26.1) | 120 (34.7) | 0.043 |
| ≥ 30 | 158 (62.2) | 68 (73.9) | 226 (65.3) | |
| Family income (monthly) | ||||
| YER More than 20,000 | 158 (62.2) | 35 (38.0) | 193 (55.8) | 0.001 |
| YER 20,000 or less | 96 (37.8) | 57 (62.0) | 153 (44.2) | |
| Educational level | ||||
| Tertiary | 73 (28.7) | 10 (10.9) | 83 (24.0) | 0.001 |
| Non and primary | 70 (27.6) | 50 (54.3) | 120 (34.7) | |
| Secondary | 111 (43.7) | 32 (34.8) | 143 (41.3) | |
| Oral hygiene practice | ||||
| Tooth brushing/day | ||||
| Once or more | 111 (43.7) | 20 (21.7) | 131 (37.9) | 0.001 |
| Sometimes | 35 (13.8) | 17 (18.5) | 52 (15.0) | |
| Never | 108 (42.5) | 55 (59.8) | 163 (47.1) | |
| Daily dental flossing | ||||
| Yes | 18 (7.1) | 3 (3.3) | 21 (6.1) | 0.188 |
| No | 236 (92.9) | 89 (96.7) | 325 (93.9) | |
| Dental attendance | ||||
| Regularly or occasionally | 41 (16.1) | 8 (8.7) | 49 (14.2) | 0.214 |
| Sometimes | 80 (31.5) | 32 (34.8) | 112 (32.4) | |
| Never | 133 (52.4) | 52 (56.5) | 185 (53.5) | |
| Mouth rinse after shammah ( | ||||
| Yes | 20 (69.0) | 32 (82.1) | 52 (76.5) | 0.208 |
| No | 9 (31.0) | 7 (17.9) | 16 (23.5) | |
| History of shammah use | ||||
| Never shammah user | 206 (81.1) | 42 (45.7) | 248 (71.7) | 0.001 |
| Former shammah user | 19 (7.5) | 11 (12.0) | 30 (8.6) | |
| Current shammah user | 29 (11.4) | 39 (42.4) | 68 (19.7) | |
| Frequency of shammah per day ( | ||||
| 1–5 times | 10 (34.5) | 8 (20.5) | 18 (26.5) | 0.405 |
| 6–10 times | 15 (51.7) | 23 (59.0) | 38 (55.9) | |
| > 10 times | 4 (13.8) | 8 (20.5) | 12 (17.6) | |
| Duration of shammah (in year) ( | ||||
| 1–5 years | 18 (62.1) | 2 (5.1) | 20 (29.4) | 0.001 |
| 6–10 years | 9 (31.0) | 12 (30.8) | 21 (30.9) | |
| >10 years | 2 (6.9) | 25 (64.1) | 27 (39.7) | |
| Duration of shammah placed in mouth (in minute) ( | ||||
| 1–5 min | 8 (27.6) | 3 (7.7) | 11 (16.2) | 0.028 |
| >5 min | 21 (72.4) | 36 (92.3) | 57 (83.8) | |
Score 0, Healthy gingivae; score 1, Gingival bleeding after probing; score 2, Calculus detected; score 3, Pocket 4 to 5 mm; score 4, Pocket 6 mm or more
*Chi- Square test was applied
aCPI scores 0–2;
bCPI scores 3–4
Factors associated with periodontal pocket among adult males in Dawan valley, Yemen by multiple logistic regression analyses
| Variable | CORa |
| AORb |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95 % CI) | (95 % CI) | |||
| Socio-demographic characteristics | ||||
| Age in years | ||||
| 18–29 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| ≥ 30 | 1.72 (1.01, 2.93) | 0.045 | 2.03 (1.13, 3.65) | 0.018 |
| Family income | ||||
| YER More than 20,000 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| YER 20,000 or less | 2.68 (1.64, 4.38) | 0.001 | 2.35 (1.39, 3.99) | 0.001 |
| Shammah status | ||||
| Never shammah user | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| Former shammah user | 2.84 (1.25, 6.40) | 0.001 | 2.66 (1.15, 6.15) | 0.022 |
| Current shammah user | 6.59 (3.67,11.82) | 0.001 | 6.62 (3.59,12.21) | 0.001 |
- aSimple logistic regression, bMultiple logistic regression
- Backward step wise LR multiple logistic regression was applied
- Multicolinearity and interaction term were checked and did not found
- Hosmer-Lemeshow test, (P = 0.865), classification table (overall correctly classified percentage (78.3 %) and area under Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve (74.1 %) were checked the fit of the model and reported to be fit