刷牙学习法:差异还是常规?随机对照临床试验。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Caries Research Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1159/000538226
Loay Leghrouz, Manasi R Khole, Christian H Splieth, Julian Schmoeckel
{"title":"刷牙学习法:差异还是常规?随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Loay Leghrouz, Manasi R Khole, Christian H Splieth, Julian Schmoeckel","doi":"10.1159/000538226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proper tooth brushing is a complicated process for children. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of differential learning to improve tooth brushing in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, controlled, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 58 children between 3 and 8 years of age (mean: 5.7 ± 1.5 years; 29 female) were randomly assigned to test or control group through the child's self-drawing of an unlabeled envelope from a box. All children received oral hygiene instructions and information in these sealed envelopes and were asked to follow the corresponding instructions at home for 28 days. Children in the test group received instructions with exercises using the differential learning method, whereas the children in the control group received the usual tooth brushing instructions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline and planned follow-ups after 4 and 12 weeks, plaque and gingival indices (QHI, PBI) were recorded in both groups by 2 calibrated and blinded investigators. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the test and control groups regarding plaque and gingival indices (QHI: 4.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.7; PBI: 0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3; p = 0.7). At the 1st and 2nd follow-up, both groups showed improved oral health indices, but there was an overall better improvement in the test group. While the difference in gingival indices was statistically significant in the 1st recall (PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.3 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001), the difference in plaque indices was not (QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9; control: 2.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.07). At the 2nd recall (mean week = 19.5 weeks), the test group showed statistically significant and clinically relevant better oral health indices than the control group (2nd recall, QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9 vs. control: 3.2 ± 1; p &lt; 0.001; PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.5 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, differential learning leads to oral hygiene improvement in children with high caries risk and initially poor oral hygiene, which was superior to the conventional learning method through repetition in the medium term.</p>","PeriodicalId":9620,"journal":{"name":"Caries Research","volume":" ","pages":"399-406"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11313045/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tooth Brushing Learning Methods: Differential or Conventional? - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Loay Leghrouz, Manasi R Khole, Christian H Splieth, Julian Schmoeckel\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000538226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proper tooth brushing is a complicated process for children. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of differential learning to improve tooth brushing in children.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, controlled, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 58 children between 3 and 8 years of age (mean: 5.7 ± 1.5 years; 29 female) were randomly assigned to test or control group through the child's self-drawing of an unlabeled envelope from a box. All children received oral hygiene instructions and information in these sealed envelopes and were asked to follow the corresponding instructions at home for 28 days. Children in the test group received instructions with exercises using the differential learning method, whereas the children in the control group received the usual tooth brushing instructions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline and planned follow-ups after 4 and 12 weeks, plaque and gingival indices (QHI, PBI) were recorded in both groups by 2 calibrated and blinded investigators. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the test and control groups regarding plaque and gingival indices (QHI: 4.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.7; PBI: 0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3; p = 0.7). At the 1st and 2nd follow-up, both groups showed improved oral health indices, but there was an overall better improvement in the test group. While the difference in gingival indices was statistically significant in the 1st recall (PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.3 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001), the difference in plaque indices was not (QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9; control: 2.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.07). At the 2nd recall (mean week = 19.5 weeks), the test group showed statistically significant and clinically relevant better oral health indices than the control group (2nd recall, QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9 vs. control: 3.2 ± 1; p &lt; 0.001; PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.5 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, differential learning leads to oral hygiene improvement in children with high caries risk and initially poor oral hygiene, which was superior to the conventional learning method through repetition in the medium term.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Caries Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"399-406\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11313045/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Caries Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538226\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Caries Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介正确刷牙对儿童来说是一个复杂的过程。因此,本研究旨在探讨差异化学习对改善儿童刷牙效果的影响:在这项前瞻性、对照、单盲、随机临床试验中,58 名 3 至 8 岁的儿童(平均:5.7±1.5 岁;29 名女性)被随机分配到试验组或对照组。所有儿童都收到了装在这些密封信封中的口腔卫生说明和信息,并被要求在家中遵守相应的说明,为期 28 天。测试组的儿童接受的是使用差异学习法进行练习的指导,而对照组的儿童接受的是通常的刷牙指导:在基线以及 4 周和 12 周后的计划随访中,由两名校准过的盲人调查员记录了两组儿童的牙菌斑和牙龈指数(QHI、PBI)。基线时,试验组和对照组的牙菌斑和牙龈指数无明显差异(QHI:4.1±0.5 vs. 4.1±0.4;p=0.7;PBI:0.6±0.3 vs. 0.6±0.3;p=0.7)。在第一次和第二次随访中,两组的口腔健康指数均有所改善,但试验组的总体改善情况更好。在第一次随访中,牙龈指数的差异具有统计学意义(PBI/测试组:0.1±0.2 vs PBI/测试组:0.1±0.2;P=0.7):0.1±0.2 vs. 对照组:0.3±0.2;p 结论:总之,差异化学习可改善龋齿风险高且最初口腔卫生较差的儿童的口腔卫生,在中期优于通过重复进行的传统学习方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Tooth Brushing Learning Methods: Differential or Conventional? - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Introduction: Proper tooth brushing is a complicated process for children. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of differential learning to improve tooth brushing in children.

Methods: In this prospective, controlled, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 58 children between 3 and 8 years of age (mean: 5.7 ± 1.5 years; 29 female) were randomly assigned to test or control group through the child's self-drawing of an unlabeled envelope from a box. All children received oral hygiene instructions and information in these sealed envelopes and were asked to follow the corresponding instructions at home for 28 days. Children in the test group received instructions with exercises using the differential learning method, whereas the children in the control group received the usual tooth brushing instructions.

Results: At baseline and planned follow-ups after 4 and 12 weeks, plaque and gingival indices (QHI, PBI) were recorded in both groups by 2 calibrated and blinded investigators. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the test and control groups regarding plaque and gingival indices (QHI: 4.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.7; PBI: 0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3; p = 0.7). At the 1st and 2nd follow-up, both groups showed improved oral health indices, but there was an overall better improvement in the test group. While the difference in gingival indices was statistically significant in the 1st recall (PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.3 ± 0.2; p < 0.001), the difference in plaque indices was not (QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9; control: 2.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.07). At the 2nd recall (mean week = 19.5 weeks), the test group showed statistically significant and clinically relevant better oral health indices than the control group (2nd recall, QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9 vs. control: 3.2 ± 1; p < 0.001; PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.5 ± 0.2; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: In conclusion, differential learning leads to oral hygiene improvement in children with high caries risk and initially poor oral hygiene, which was superior to the conventional learning method through repetition in the medium term.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Caries Research
Caries Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Caries Research'' publishes epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies in dental caries, erosion and related dental diseases. Some studies build on the considerable advances already made in caries prevention, e.g. through fluoride application. Some aim to improve understanding of the increasingly important problem of dental erosion and the associated tooth wear process. Others monitor the changing pattern of caries in different populations, explore improved methods of diagnosis or evaluate methods of prevention or treatment. The broad coverage of current research has given the journal an international reputation as an indispensable source for both basic scientists and clinicians engaged in understanding, investigating and preventing dental disease.
期刊最新文献
Selective outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on dental caries in children and adolescents: A meta-research study. Is poor self-rated health associated with higher caries experience in adults? The HUNT4 Oral Health Study. Concentration and Stability of Fluoride Chemically Available in Charcoal-Containing Toothpastes. Dentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Study. Dietary Carbohydrates Modulate Streptococcus mutans Adherence and Bacterial Proteome.
×
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