| Literature DB >> 28959771 |
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Inadequate tooth brushing and inappropriate oral hygiene can lead to dental caries, the most common chronic diseases of childhood with several side effects.Entities:
Keywords: Oral Hygiene ; Oral Hygiene Index ; Risk Factors; Child ; Inadequate Tooth Brushing
Year: 2017 PMID: 28959771 PMCID: PMC5608069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Biomater ISSN: 2383-3971
Oral hygiene of the studied children (N=396)
| Oral health status | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency of tooth brushing | ||
| Once a day or more | 300 | 75.8 |
| Lower than Once a day | 96 | 24.2 |
| Never | 0 | 0 |
| The age tooth brushing had been started | ||
| 2 years old or younger | 114 | 28.8 |
| After 2 years old | 282 | 71.2 |
| Preventive dental procedures | ||
| Yes | 51 | 12.9 |
| No | 345 | 87.1 |
| Previous dental visits | ||
| No previous dental visits | 189 | 47.7 |
| Dental visits for check-up | 77 | 19.4 |
| Dental visits for pain and other oral problems | 130 | 32.8 |
| Parents’ satisfaction of their children’s dental cleaning | ||
| Yes | 226 | 57.1 |
| No | 103 | 26.0 |
| Don’t know | 67 | 16.9 |
| Parents’ evaluation of their children’s oral health status | ||
| Very good | 55 | 13.9 |
| Good | 164 | 41.4 |
| Moderate | 85 | 21.5 |
| Bad | 61 | 15.4 |
| Very bad | 26 | 6.6 |
| Don’t know | 5 | 1.3 |
Univariate and regression analyses regarding the impact of children’s demographic factors on their tooth brushing frequency (N=396)
| Children’s demographic factors | Total | Children’s tooth brushing frequency | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Regression analysis | |||||
| ≥Once a day N(%) | ≥Once a day N(%) |
| OR |
| ||
| Child’s sex | 0.486 | 0.268 | ||||
| Boy | 202(51) | 156(77.6) | 46(22.8) | 1.32 | ||
| Girl | 194(49) | 144(74.2) | 50(25.8) | 1 | ||
| Child’s age | 0.856 | |||||
| 36-47 months old | 49(12.4) | 38(77.6) | 11(22.4) | 1.04 | 0.924 | |
| 48-59 months old | 84(21.2) | 65(77.4) | 19(22.6) | 0.94 | 0.851 | |
| 60-72 months old | 263(66.4) | 197(74.9) | 66(25.1) | 1 | ||
| Number of children in the family | 0.002 | 0.001 | ||||
| One child | 162(40.9) | 136(84.0) | 26(16.0) | 2.44 | ||
| More than one child | 234(59.1) | 164(70.1) | 70(29.9) | 1 | ||
| Father’s job | 0.005 | 0.142 | ||||
| Self-employed | 258(65.2) | 184(71.3) | 74(28.7) | 1 | ||
| Employee | 138(34.8) | 116(84.1) | 22(15.9) | 1.58 | ||
| Mother’s employment status | <0.001 | 0.037 | ||||
| Employed | 107(27) | 95(88.8) | 12(11.2) | 2.24 | ||
| Homemaker | 289(73) | 205(70.9) | 84(29.1) | 1 | ||
| Fathers’ education | 0.003 | 0.430 | ||||
| High school or less | 171(43.2) | 158(70.2) | 67(29.8) | 1 | ||
| University degree | 225(56.8) | 142(83.0) | 29(17.0) | 1.29 | ||
| Mothers’ education | <0.001 | 0.497 | ||||
| High school or less | 160(40.4) | 164(69.5) | 72(30.5) | 1 | ||
| University degree | 236(59.6) | 136(85.0) | 24(15.0) | 1.26 | ||
Pearson’s chi square N= Number
Logistic regression OR= Odds Ratio
Univariate and multivariate analyses regarding the impact of the children’s demographic factors on the age tooth brushing had been started for them (N=396)
| Children’s demographic factors | Total | Age tooth brushing had been started for children | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Regression analysis | |||||
| ≤2 years old | ≤2 years old |
| OR |
| ||
| Child’s sex | 0.682 | 0.615 | ||||
| Boy | 202(51) | 60(29.7) | 142(70.3) | 1.12 | ||
| Girl | 194(49) | 54(27.8) | 140(72.2) | 1 | ||
| Child’s age | 0.926 | |||||
| 36-47 months old | 49(12.4) | 13(26.5) | 36(73.5) | 0.67 | 0.277 | |
| 48-59 months old | 84(21.2) | 24(28.6) | 60(71.4) | 0.90 | 0.736 | |
| 60-72 months old | 263(66.4) | 77(29.3) | 186(70.7) | 1 | ||
| Number of children in the family | 0.134 | 0.144 | ||||
| One child | 162(40.9) | 40(24.7) | 122(75.3) | 0.70 | ||
| More than one child | 234(59.1) | 74(31.6) | 160(68.4) | 1 | ||
| Father’s job | 0.001 | 0.358 | ||||
| Self-employed | 258(65.2) | 60(23.3) | 198(76.7) | 1 | ||
| Employee | 138(34.8) | 54(39.1) | 84(60.9) | 1.28 | ||
| Mother’s employment status | <0.001 | 0.290 | ||||
| Employed | 107(27) | 45(42.1) | 62(57.9) | 1.37 | ||
| Housewife | 289(73) | 69(23.9) | 220(76.1) | 1 | ||
| Fathers’ education | <0.001 | 0.027 | ||||
| High school or less | 171(43.2) | 44(19.6) | 181(80.4) | 1 | ||
| University degree | 225(56.8) | 70(40.9) | 101(59.1) | 1.91 | ||
| Mothers’ education | <0.001 | 0.231 | ||||
| High school or less | 160(40.4) | 50(21.2) | 186(78.8) | 1 | ||
| University degree | 236(59.6) | 64(40.0) | 96(60) | 1.45 | ||
Pearson’s chi square N= Number
Logistic regression OR= Odds Ratio
Univariate and multivariate analyses regarding the impact of the children’s demographic factors on their DI-S (N=396)
| Children’s demographic factors | Total number | Children’s DI-S | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Regression analysis | |||||
| Mean ± SD |
| Β (SE) |
| |||
| Child’s sex | 0.629 | |||||
| Boy | 202(51) | 1.21 ± 0.75 | 0.01 (0.07) | 0.895 | ||
| Girl | 194(49) | 1.17 ± 0.80 | 1 | |||
| Child’s age | 0.007 | |||||
| 36-47 months old | 49(12.4) | 1.05 ± 0.72ab | -0.25 (0.12) | 0.031 | ||
| 48-59 months old | 84(21.2) | 1.00 ± 0.73a | -0.22 (0.09) | 0.019 | ||
| 60-72 months old | 263(66.4) | 1.27 ± 0.79b | 1 | |||
| Number of children in the family | <0.001 | |||||
| One child | 162(40.9) | 0.98 ± 0.70 | -0.32 (0.08) | <0.001 | ||
| More than one child | 234(59.1) | 1.34 ± 0.79 | 1 | |||
| Father’s job | 0.477 | |||||
| Self-employed | 258(65.2) | 1.21 ± 0.77 | 0.01 (0.09) | 0.886 | ||
| Employee | 138(34.8) | 1.15 ± 0.78 | 1 | |||
| Mother’s employment status | 0.013 | |||||
| Employed | 107(27) | 1.03 ± 0.72 | -0.08 (0.10) | 0.447 | ||
| housewife | 289(73) | 1.25 ± 0.79 | 1 | |||
| Fathers’ education | 0.263 | |||||
| High school or less | 171(43.2) | 1.23 ± 0.78 | 1 | |||
| University degree | 225(56.8) | 1.14 ± 0.76 | 0.07 (0.10) | 0.486 | ||
| Mothers’ education | <0.001 | |||||
| High school or less | 160(40.4) | 1.30 ± 0.78 | 1 | |||
| University degree | 236(59.6) | 1.02 ± 0.74 | -0.24 (0.10) | 0.019 | ||
DI-S: Simplified Debris Index SD: Standard Deviation SE: Standard Error
Student’s t-test
One way ANOVA
Multiple linear regression
Note: The result of Tukey test was shown using letters in superscript. There was a statistically significant difference between groups without a common letter.