| Literature DB >> 29641493 |
Javad Ramezaninia1, Mohammad Mehdi Naghibi Sistani2, Zohreh Ahangari3, Hemmat Gholinia4, Iman Jahanian5, Samaneh Gharekhani6.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different modes of toothbrushing education (lecture, video and pamphlet) on the dental plaque index (PI) of adolescents. The cluster randomized intervention was performed on 128 participants aged 12 years, who were allocated into four groups based on the type of intervention. Group 1: no intervention; and groups 2, 3, 4: education via lecture, video, and pamphlet, respectively (n = 32). Their plaque index was measured at the baseline, 24 h and two months later. Data were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), one-way ANOVA, independent and paired t-test. The plaque indices of groups 2, 3, 4 at 24 h (p values < 0.001) and two months (p values < 0.001) showed a significant reduction when compared to the baseline. The lowest PI score was observed in the pamphlet, video and lecture groups at 24 h, respectively. After 2 months, the lowest score of PI was measured in lecture, video and pamphlet groups, respectively; however, these differences were non-significant. Therefore, toothbrushing education via lecture, video and pamphlet reduced the dental plaque index with the same effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; education; lecture; pamphlet; toothbrushing; video
Year: 2018 PMID: 29641493 PMCID: PMC5920396 DOI: 10.3390/children5040050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Children (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9067
Figure 1Study procedure.
The mean (± standard deviation (SD)) plaque index (PI) in baseline by gender, type of school and interaction groups.
| Mean ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Girl | 0.9 ± 0.43 | 0.9 * |
| Boy | 0.89 ± 0.38 | ||
| Type of school | Public school | 0.78 ± 0.38 | 0.002 * |
| Private school | 1.00 ± 0.40 | ||
| Educational groups | Control | 0.70 ± 0.40 (A) | 0.01 ** |
| Lecture | 0.89 ± 0.40 (AB) | ||
| Video | 0.95 ± 0.38 (AB) | ||
| Pamphlet | 1.02 ± 0.39 (B) |
There is no statistically significant difference between two mean plaque indices with same letters at 0.05; p-value *: independent t-test; p-value **: analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Comparison of PI in interaction groups at different times.
| Groups | Base | 24 h | Two Months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | (a) 0.70 ± 0.40 | - | (a) 1.04 ± 0.40 | 0.01 *** |
| Lecture | (ab) 0.89 ± 0.40 (A) | (a) 0.30 ± 0.19 (B) | (b) 0.14 ± 0.12 (B) | <0.001 * |
| Video | (ab) 0.95 ± 0.38 (A) | (ab) 0.25 ± 0.15 (B) | (b) 0.18 ± 0.11 (B) | <0.001 * |
| Pamphlet | (b) 1.02 ± 0.39 (A) | (b) 0.19 ± 0.14 (B) | (b) 0.24 ± 0.20 (B) | <0.001 * |
| 0.01 ** | 0.04 ** | <0.001 ** | - |
There is no statistically significant difference between two mean plaque indices with same letters at 0.05 (abc system for column comparison and ABC system for row comparison). p-Value *: repeated measures ANOVA; p-value **: one-way ANOVA; p-value ***: pair t-test.
Comparison of PI in different groups by gender.
| Groups | Gender | Base | 24 h | Two Months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Girls | 0.71 ± 0.40 | - | 0.98 ± 0.33 | <0.001 *** |
| Boys | 0.70 ± 0.41 | - | 1.01 ± 0.46 | <0.001 *** | |
| 0.95 ** | - | 0.40 ** | - | ||
|
| Girls | 0.89 ± 0.33 (A) | 0.30 ± 0.16 (B) | 0.15 ± 0.13 (C) | <0.001 * |
| Boys | 0.89 ± 0.36 (A) | 0.29 ± 0.22 (B) | 0.13 ± 0.12 (C) | <0.001 * | |
| 1.00 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.90 ** | - | ||
|
| Girls | 1.05 ± 0.42 (A) | 0.25 ± 0.18 (B) | 0.16 ± 0.08 (B) | <0.001 * |
| Boys | 0.86 ± 0.32 (A) | 0.24 ± 0.12 (B) | 0.20 ± 0.13 (B) | <0.001 * | |
| 0.16 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.83 ** | - | ||
|
| Girls | 0.94 ± 0.42 (A) | 0.14 ± 0.09 (B) | 0.27 ± 0.27 (B) | <0.001 * |
| Boys | 1.10 ± 0.35 (A) | 0.24 ± 0.16 (B) | 0.21 ± 0.11 (B) | <0.001 * | |
| 0.24 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.03 ** | - |
There is no statistically significant difference between two mean plaque indices with same letters at 0.05. p-Value *: repeated measures ANOVA; p-value **: independent t-test; p-value ***: pair t-test.