| Literature DB >> 32848514 |
Asim Al-Ansari1, Maha El Tantawi2, Nasser AlMadan3, Muhammad Nazir1, Balgis Gaffar1, Khalifa Al-Khalifa1, Ali AlBaty3.
Abstract
The study assessed the relationship between Internet addiction and oral health practices and clinical outcomes and whether this was affected by oral health perception. In 2017, a cross-sectional study included university students in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Questionnaires assessed demographic background, oral health practices (consuming sugar, tobacco use, and oral hygiene), perceived oral health, and Internet addiction. Caries experience and gingivitis were assessed using the World Health Organization criteria. The multivariate general linear analysis assessed the relationship between dependent variables (oral health practices, DMFT, and gingivitis) and exposure (Internet addiction). Data were available for 919 participants, 75.4% females, mean age = 19.8 years, and 1.6% with significant Internet use problem. The mean percentage of teeth with gingivitis was 8.5% and mean DMFT was 2.9. Among those with good perception of oral health and compared with participants with significant Internet use problem, average Internet users had lower consumption of sugar and tobacco (B = -6.52, P = 0.03 and B = -2.04, P = 0.03), better oral hygiene practices (B = 2.07, P = 0.33), higher DMFT (B = 2.53, P = 0.10), and lesser gingivitis (B = -15.45, P = 0.06). Internet addiction was associated with negative oral health practices and poor clinical outcomes among young Saudis. Holistic health promotion approaches need to address the negative impact of Internet addiction on health and oral health status for this at-risk age group.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32848514 PMCID: PMC7439169 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7987356
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Personal, socioeconomic, and dental characteristics of participants.
| Factor | Statistic | IAT score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) |
| |||
| Gender | Male: | 232 (24.6) | 51.99 (14.69) | 0.004 |
| Female: | 712 (75.4) | 48.98 (13.69) | ||
|
| ||||
| Track | Health: | 224 (23.9) | 48.70 (14.94) | 0.18 |
| Engineering: | 87 (9.3) | 52.30 (12.79) | ||
| Science: | 203 (21.6) | 48.93 (12.93) | ||
| Other: | 424 (45.2) | 49.88 (14.03) | ||
|
| ||||
| University-educated father | Yes: | 464 (49.3) | 49.38 (13.45) | 0.44 |
| No: | 478 (50.7) | 50.08 (14.52) | ||
|
| ||||
| University-educated mother | Yes: | 376 (40) | 49.85 (13.82) | 0.79 |
| No: | 565 (60) | 49.60 (14.12) | ||
|
| ||||
| Regular checkup last year | Yes: | 94 (10) | 46.69 (12.97) | 0.03 |
| No: | 846 (90) | 50.02 (14.07) | ||
|
| ||||
| Perceived oral health | Poor: | 139 (15.1) | 51.29 (13.58) | 0.16 |
| Fair: | 405 (43.9) | 49.86 (13.52) | ||
| Good: | 379 (41.1) | 48.74 (14.36) | ||
|
| ||||
| Problematic Internet use | Average: | 484 (51.2) | — | |
| Frequent: | 447 (47.3) | |||
| Significant problem: | 232 (24.6) | |||
Statistically significant at P < 0.05. P value: Pearson correlation for age, ANOVA for track and perceived oral health, and t-test for the remaining factors. The mean (SD) age of the sample was 19.8 (1.4) years and Pearson correlation coefficient between age and IAT score was 0.02 (P=0.60).
Figure 1Frequency of consuming sweet products.
Figure 2Frequency of using tobacco products.
Association of Internet use with oral health practices and clinical outcomes stratified by the perception of oral health.
| Perceived oral health | Problematic Internet use | Sugar score | Tobacco score | Oral hygiene practices score | DMFT | Percentage of teeth with gingival bleeding | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Average vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | 4.62 (−6.15, 15.40) | −1.75 (−13.69, 10.18) | 0.28 (−7.78, 8.33) | 2.41 (−4.08, 8.90) | −6.51 (−47.82, 34.80) |
|
| 0.40 | 0.77 | 0.95 | 0.46 | 0.76 | ||
|
| 0.006 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.001 | ||
| Frequent vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | 6.44 (−4.42, 17.29) | −2.46 (−14.48, 9.56) | −0.32 (−8.43, 7.80) | 2.42 (−4.12, 8.96) | −7.01 (−48.62, 34.60) | |
|
| 0.24 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.47 | 0.74 | ||
|
| 0.01 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.001 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Fair | Average vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | −5.90 (−9.83, −1.98) | −0.86 (−3.25, 1.53) | 0.86 (−1.77, 3.49) | 0.62 (−1.48, 2.72) | −4.25 (−13.86, 5.35) |
|
| 0.003 | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.39 | ||
|
| 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | ||
| Frequent vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | −5.54 (−9.44, −1.64) | −0.79 (−3.16, 1.58) | 0.48 (−2.13, 3.09) | 0.62 (−1.47, 2.71) | −6.14 (−15.68, 3.40) | |
|
| 0.006 | 0.51 | 0.72 | 0.56 | 0.21 | ||
|
| 0.02 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.004 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Good | Average vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | −6.52 (−12.55, −0.49) | −2.04 (−3.92, −0.15) | 2.07 (−2.12, 6.26) | 2.53 (−0.52, 5.58) | −15.45 (−31.61, 0.72) |
|
| 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.06 | ||
|
| 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.01 | ||
| Frequent vs. significant problem | Regression coefficient (95% CI) | −5.26 (−11.30, 0.78) | −2.11 (−4.00, −0.22) | 2.04 (−2.16, 6.23) | 2.64 (−0.42, 5.70) | −14.76 (−30.96, 1.44) | |
|
| 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.07 | ||
|
| 0.008 | 0.01 | 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.009 | ||
Controlling for gender, age, parental education, track, and having regular checkups last year. CI: confidence interval; η2: partial eta squared. Statistically significant at P < 0.05.