Comparative study to assess the effect of chewing stick and toothbrush on oral hygiene, gingival health and pocket depth among patients attending dental outpatient clinic in Udaipur, India

Aachu Agrawal, Niraj M. Bhatt, K. Shivlingesh, Konsam Sashikanta Singh, Harshvardhan Chaudhary, S. S. Roy
{"title":"Comparative study to assess the effect of chewing stick and toothbrush on oral hygiene, gingival health and pocket depth among patients attending dental outpatient clinic in Udaipur, India","authors":"Aachu Agrawal, Niraj M. Bhatt, K. Shivlingesh, Konsam Sashikanta Singh, Harshvardhan Chaudhary, S. S. Roy","doi":"10.4314/NDJ.V18I1.64917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purposes of this study was to assess and compare the oral hygiene, gingival health and pocket depth among patients using miswak (Salvadora Persica L) and toothbrush. Method: A total of 528 subjects participated in this study (63.6% females and 36.4% males), ranging in age from 20 to 45 years (mean = 35.43 ± 12.83). After fulfilling the entry criteria participants were classified according to their oral hygiene habits as miswak users (group I), tooth brush and paste users (group II) or both miswak users and tooth brush and paste users (group III). All subjects were assessed using Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S), gingival index, pocket depth and gingival recession. Result: There was no statistically significant difference of mean OHI-S scores between miswak (1.04±0.64), toothbrush (1.08± 0.71) and combined users (1.09±0.74). On the other hand, all the three groups differ significantly in relation to mean gingival index scores, miswak (0.95±0.63), toothbrush (1.20± 0.59) and combined users (1.44±0.71) (p= 0.000). Also, Group II (3.90±1.88) demonstrated a significantly higher mean pocket depth than Group I (3.31±2.12) (p=0.019). However, gingival recession was significantly higher in Group I (2.17±1.64) in comparison to Group II (1.37±1.35) and Group III (1.30±1.58) (P=0.000). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, miswak (Salvadora Persica L) users exhibited good oral hygiene and gingival index score but they had higher gingival recession scores which may influence the periodontal health. Key words: Tooth brush; Miswak; Oral hygiene; Gingivitis; Periodontal  pocket; gingival recession","PeriodicalId":79241,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Dental Journal","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/NDJ.V18I1.64917","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: The purposes of this study was to assess and compare the oral hygiene, gingival health and pocket depth among patients using miswak (Salvadora Persica L) and toothbrush. Method: A total of 528 subjects participated in this study (63.6% females and 36.4% males), ranging in age from 20 to 45 years (mean = 35.43 ± 12.83). After fulfilling the entry criteria participants were classified according to their oral hygiene habits as miswak users (group I), tooth brush and paste users (group II) or both miswak users and tooth brush and paste users (group III). All subjects were assessed using Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S), gingival index, pocket depth and gingival recession. Result: There was no statistically significant difference of mean OHI-S scores between miswak (1.04±0.64), toothbrush (1.08± 0.71) and combined users (1.09±0.74). On the other hand, all the three groups differ significantly in relation to mean gingival index scores, miswak (0.95±0.63), toothbrush (1.20± 0.59) and combined users (1.44±0.71) (p= 0.000). Also, Group II (3.90±1.88) demonstrated a significantly higher mean pocket depth than Group I (3.31±2.12) (p=0.019). However, gingival recession was significantly higher in Group I (2.17±1.64) in comparison to Group II (1.37±1.35) and Group III (1.30±1.58) (P=0.000). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, miswak (Salvadora Persica L) users exhibited good oral hygiene and gingival index score but they had higher gingival recession scores which may influence the periodontal health. Key words: Tooth brush; Miswak; Oral hygiene; Gingivitis; Periodontal  pocket; gingival recession
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度乌代普尔牙科门诊患者咀嚼棒与牙刷对口腔卫生、牙龈健康和牙袋深度影响的对比研究
目的:评价和比较miswak (Salvadora Persica L)与牙刷的口腔卫生、牙龈健康和牙袋深度。方法:共纳入528例受试者,其中女性63.6%,男性36.4%,年龄20 ~ 45岁,平均= 35.43±12.83。在满足进入标准后,根据受试者的口腔卫生习惯将其分为误用者(I组)、刷牙和牙膏使用者(II组)或同时使用误用者和牙刷和牙膏使用者(III组)。所有受试者使用简化口腔卫生指数(OHI-S)、牙龈指数、口袋深度和牙龈退行度进行评估。结果:miswak(1.04±0.64)、牙刷(1.08±0.71)和联合用药(1.09±0.74)的平均OHI-S评分差异无统计学意义。三组患者的平均牙龈指数得分、误牙(0.95±0.63)分、牙刷(1.20±0.59)分、联合使用(1.44±0.71)分差异均有统计学意义(p= 0.000)。II组的平均袋深(3.90±1.88)明显高于I组(3.31±2.12)(p=0.019)。组牙龈退缩(2.17±1.64)明显高于组(1.37±1.35)和组(1.30±1.58)(P=0.000)。结论:本研究表明miswak (Salvadora Persica L)使用者口腔卫生状况良好,牙龈指数得分较高,但牙龈萎缩评分较高,可能影响牙周健康。关键词:牙刷;Miswak;口腔卫生;牙龈炎;牙周袋;牙龈萎缩
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin on Post-Operative Inflammatory Sequelae after Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial Translational Systems Approach to Clinical Dental Research: A Primer for Precision and Personalized Oral Health in Resource-Constrained Settings Dictive Factors of Dental Anxiety in Adult Patients at a Tertiary Dental Hospital in Nigeria Developing a Traditional Oral Health Education Folktale for Primary School Pupils in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria Prevalence of Dental Caries and Predisposing Factors in Obio-Akpor Local Government Area, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1