Next Article in Journal
Experiences of Online COVID-19 Information Acquisition among Persons with Type 2 Diabetes and Varying eHealth Literacy
Previous Article in Journal
“I Teach, Therefore I Am”: The Serial Relationship between Perceived Vulnerability to Disease, Fear of COVID-19, Teacher Identification and Teacher Satisfaction
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Outcomes of an Interventional Oral Health Program on Dental Students’ Oral Hygiene

1
Faculty of Stomatology, Pancevo, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, 26000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(24), 13242; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413242
Submission received: 31 October 2021 / Revised: 10 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 December 2021 / Published: 15 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic State-of-the-Art Dentistry and Oral Health)

Abstract

:
Dental students are an interesting population because they are expected to have a higher level of knowledge of and to exhibit better oral hygiene habits, and thus have a greater impact on the environment, families, and society as a whole. The aim of this research was to determine the state of oral hygiene in dental students before and after the interventional health education program. The research sample consisted of 119 students of dentistry in their first and fourth years of study. The first research stage was conducted before health education intervention (for the evaluation of selected oral health parameters, the Decayed, Missing and Filled index, Greene–Vermillion index, Silness–Löe plaque index, Silness–Löe gingival index, and the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs index were used). The second stage was conducted as a clinical measurement of oral health changes. The conducted health education intervention, to an extent, led to changes in the state of oral hygiene among the students, and thus healthier habits. There was a statistically significant difference in the examined population between the beginning of the study and after the health education intervention program. Although a significant improvement in oral hygiene and oral health was noticed after the health education intervention program, the state of oral hygiene was still not at a satisfactory level among the dental students, contrary to our expectations.

1. Introduction

Dentists play an important role in improving oral health. Therefore, acquiring knowledge regarding dental health and the prevention of oral diseases is crucial during the training of dental students throughout their studies [1].
One of the main goals of health education is to train students so that they can motivate patients to adopt good oral hygiene, and there is certainly a greater possibility of them doing exactly that if they themselves are motivated and implement good oral hygiene [2]. Dental students should be able to apply their knowledge to their own dental care [3]. Their knowledge largely determines the level of maintenance of oral hygiene of their future patients [4,5]. Dental students are particularly interesting because they are expected to have a higher level of knowledge and skills, and they are also expected to exhibit better oral hygiene habits, and thus have a greater impact on the environment, families, and society as a whole. Their knowledge of oral health and how to implement oral hygiene changes and improves during their years of study [6]; the way students experience changes in their views towards oral health during their undergraduate education can be seen as a reflection of the effect of dental training. Students’ attitude towards their own teeth, proper oral hygiene, and oral health in general, can play a significant role in the later determination of health treatments [7].
Oral health is part of general health and affects people’s daily activities and quality of life. Activity within the field of oral health is one of the many important opportunities for preserving and improving the health and quality of life of the entire population, because it is directed towards the elimination of harmful factors that can endanger human health [8]. Health education should be distinguished from health propaganda and health edification, with which it is most often identified in everyday practice. The aim of health education is to develop responsibility for one’s own health, the health of their loved ones, and the health of those in their close proximity. Health propaganda is only one part of health education. Its aim is to inform and acquaint the public with some health issues, in order to motivate and interest them. Health edification refers to the acquisition of certain health knowledge. It must be emphasized that, unlike the other two that teach and inform, health education is effective in improving knowledge [9], which means that knowledge is received, incorporated, and applied as such.
In dentistry, there are two basic (most common) diseases: caries and periodontitis (very often chronic diseases). Periodontal health is a major component of oral health that concentrates on the prevention of inflammatory diseases in the supportive tissue surrounding the teeth. These diseases are largely preventable and represent a serious public health problem; in most cases, the development of the disease depends on the individual and their implementation of proper and adequate oral hygiene [10,11].
There are a number of factors that greatly affect the state of oral health of students, and the younger population in general, thus affecting the individual and collective attitude towards oral hygiene and habits in maintaining it. A student’s way of life is not exclusively a matter of free choice that depends on chosen values, their attitudes and knowledge, or even set priorities, but is conditioned by environmental factors and is often limited by cultural, economic, and social factors [12]. Social determinants, such as economic factors, environmental factors, and lifestyle, have a major impact on oral health [13]. Healthy habits are activities that promote, protect, or maintain an individual’s health, while risky behaviors refer to actions that have a negative effect on oral health [14].
Health education is based on scientific truths about the multicausal etiology of these diseases, which results in the need to change or improve knowledge in dental students, as well as the individual, group, or community, in terms of establishing the habit of maintaining good oral hygiene (regular maintenance, techniques, means, efficiency control), the use of fluoride, and even establishing a proper diet [15].
The aim of this research was to determine the state of oral hygiene in dental students before and after an interventional health education program, to evaluate its effectiveness in order to improve the state of oral hygiene.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Method and Plan

The research was conducted as a longitudinal cross-sectional study. Research preparations and the research itself were conducted at the Faculty of Stomatology in Pancevo in two stages: the first stage was conducted before health education intervention (during September and October of the 2018 school year) conducted through a dental examination, where assessments of the level of oral hygiene were made using the appropriate index of indicators. The assessment of the oral health conditions were performed in the dental clinic of the Faculty of Stomatology in Pancevo, under artificial lightning; a dental probe, periodontal probe, and dental mirror were used in the examination. Health education intervention was conducted afterwards in all the examined students in their first and fourth years of study, with a period of six months. The second stage was conducted with all students of the research sample, after health education intervention (March 2019), as a clinical measurement of oral health changes.
The research sample consisted of students of dentistry in their first and fourth years of study at the Faculty of Stomatology in Pancevo; there were a total of 119 students, of which 65 were first-year and 54 were fourth-year students. Students were selected as a compact group for observation, by simple random choice.
Implementation of this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Stomatology in Pancevo, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, protocol number 1161/1-2017. Only those respondents who sent written consent in relation to the voluntary participation in the study were included in the study.

2.2. Research Instruments

The following are defined as the research instruments for this study:
  • A research record of the oral health (oral hygiene) condition in respondents, adjusted to the WHO (World Health Organization) parameters [15]. For evaluation of selected oral health parameters, the DMF index was used to evaluate the total sum of decayed, extracted (missing), and filled teeth. For estimation of the condition of oral hygiene, the Greene–Vermillion index and Silness–Löe plaque index were used. For estimation of gingival condition, the Silness–Löe gingival index was used. For estimation of the supportive dental tissue, the CPITN (community periodontal index of treatment needs) was used.
  • Health education intervention to improve habits in the implementation of oral hygiene [16,17]. The interventional oral health education program for the purposes of this research was defined in three stages through three complementary fields: the importance of oral health, oral hygiene, and health-safe habits. It included the method (group health education work and communication methods—live demonstrations, creative workshops), means of research (visual, audio-visual, and demonstration models), content (characteristics of good oral health, the importance of oral health for health overall, preventability of oral diseases, control and preventive examinations at the dentist, definition and explanation of terms such as dental plaque, decay, gingivitis, concretions, periodontal disease, oral hygiene, oral hygiene accessories, toothbrush technique, and individual goals in achieving good oral health), and practical work (training in proper oral hygiene, training in use of oral hygiene aids—dental floss, dental floss holder, proximal brush, mouthwash, oral and dental hygiene control—dental biofilm staining method, toothpaste selection criteria for daily use—and the interpretation of fluoride composition declaration in toothpaste).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). In order to reach relevant conclusions with respect to the surveyed groups, the obtained data for numerical characteristics are presented in the tables containing the relevant statistical parameters necessary for the statistical conclusion in the set research. The descriptive statistics methods used in the research were the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and standard error. The methods of differential statistics used in the research were parametric tests of independent samples (confidence interval for probability p = 0.95, ANOVA, Levene’s test, Student’s t-test), a parametric test of dependent samples (paired samples t-test), and nonparametric tests of independent samples (Pearson Chi-Square test, Fisher’s exact tests).

3. Results and Discussion

This study showed that, at the beginning of the health education intervention, personal care in maintaining oral hygiene in the dental students was at a low level, and that further efforts in education are necessary to lead to a general improvement of oral health in students, as well as the application of additional hygiene methods that are effective in maintaining a good level of oral health [18]. Unsatisfactory oral hygiene among students can be explained by the fact that students had a low awareness of oral health and poor knowledge at the beginning of their dental studies. Another possible reason for this is the lack of effective school programs on the importance of oral health at the national level, which aims to help children improve their oral hygiene and maintain oral health at a desirable level [19]. The students’ oral health status at the beginning of the research showed that the average number of healthy teeth was 20.5, the number of decayed teeth for the entire sample was 0.58, the number of extracted teeth was 0.84, and the average number of filled teeth was 5.94. There was no significant difference between the first- and the fourth-year students. The average DMF index in the study group was 7.36 (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Early tooth loss and the loss of occlusal support may cause impairment of masticatory performances and changes in the neuromuscular pattern of jaw masticatory activity [20].
The higher prevalence of caries is associated with the lack of implementation of preventive measures and organized health education programs to promote health, especially in Eastern European countries [21]. That 64.6% of first-year students and 55.6% of fourth-year students had plaque on their teeth, and 70.8% of first-year students and 79.6% of fourth-year students had tartar-like plaque, indicates an inadequate control of dental biofilm, despite our expectations that that percentage should be significantly lower, especially since the study was done on dental students. It was found that 51.4% of first-year students and 48.6% of fourth-year students had changes in the gingiva requiring dental treatment, and in relation to that, 56.9% of first-year students and 46.3% of fourth-year students had changes in the periodontium. These results indicate that an integrated approach to the promotion of oral health should include all risk factors for the development of chronic diseases and that it should be raised to a higher level through the health education program. An important task that is to be achieved by health education intervention is to instill healthy oral habits in students for the prevention of oral diseases, and the first step is to provide relevant knowledge [22]. Students most often underestimate their susceptibility to caries and periodontitis, and they do not consider them as serious health problems compared to some other chronic diseases [23,24]. In order to improve oral hygiene, it is necessary to use chlorhexidine solution in concentrations from 0.12% to 0.20% without alcohol and ADS. This have been proven to have an antiseptic effect and reduce gingival inflammation, and does not cause discoloration, taste disturbance, or dry mucous membranes [25]. Concentrations of 0.20% should be used in more pronounced acute inflammatory processes on the gingiva. Poor periodontal condition was also shown by Japanese studies, where students needed dental treatment [26], while a large number of Finnish students have a better approach to oral health, which could be explained by a better approach to organized dental care [7]. Several studies have confirmed that knowledge about oral health becomes more positive with age and level of education [27,28,29]. Since the program lasted six months, the number of healthy teeth did not change, but the number of carious teeth decreased (from 0.58 at the beginning of the study to 0.42 after the targeted intervention). As a result, the number of filled teeth increased (from 5.94 to 6.03). The total DMF index decreased. This is explained by the better motivation of students to take care of their teeth after the positive effect of the health education intervention [30,31]. Also, there were changes in the state of oral hygiene. The conducted health education intervention has to some extent led to changes in the state of oral hygiene among the students, and thus has led to healthier habits and proper and regular oral hygiene in order to improve oral health. After this program, there was a decrease in soft deposits, with 86.1% of first-year students and 74.0% of fourth-year students not having soft deposits on their teeth. There was a statistically significant difference in the examined population of students between the beginning of the study and after the health education intervention program: χ2 = 10.846 at the level of p < 0.001 (Table 5). The change in the state of oral hygiene was also expressed by the changes in the values of dental concretions in the students of the examined sample. Unlike before, after the health education intervention, only 26.2% of first- and 33.3% of fourth-year students had present calculus, so there was a statistically significant difference in the examined population of students between the beginning of the study and after the health intervention program: χ2 = 12.829 at the level of p < 0.001 (Table 6). It was determined that the health education intervention also influenced the change of the condition of the gingiva and periodontium. Changes in the gingiva after the intervention were at 49.2% in first-year students and 17.0% in fourth-year students. There was a statistically significant difference between the beginning of the study and after the education: χ2 = 9.135 at the level of p < 0.001 (Table 7). The measured presence of changes on the periodontium after the intervention was 38.5% in first-year students and 46.3% in fourth-year students. There was a statistically significant difference in the examined population of students between the beginning of the study and after the intervention: χ2 = 10.599 at the level of p < 0.001 (Table 8).
It was found that the soft and hard deposits on the teeth decreased, and the intervention affected the change in the condition of the gingiva and the supporting apparatus of the teeth [32,33]. Similar research conducted at different faculties in different environments proved that the constant improvement and adoption of knowledge at the professional level is reflected in students’ oral hygiene [2,34,35,36]. When it comes to dental plaque, the situation is different. The fact that the condition of plaque after the intervention remained at the same level as before the intervention suggests that, in order to notice a change in this segment of oral health it is, on the one hand, necessary to extend the duration of health education, and on the other hand, to intensify the parts that refer to procedures and techniques for its elimination. Similar studies conducted in Kuwait, Turkey, and Croatia show how students have progressed through various health education programs and how their oral hygiene as well as knowledge of oral health has improved [19,33,37].

4. Conclusions

Although a significant improvement in oral hygiene and oral health was noticed after the health education intervention program, the state of the dental students’ oral hygiene was still not at a satisfactory level, contrary to our expectations, since they chose dentistry as a professional field. This statement is supported by the noticeable inflammation of the gingiva and periodontium of the students. Since dental students are considered role models for their families, friends, and patients, it is imperative to teach them the necessary skills to achieve better oral health, which can be done through continuous health education programs in addition to basic studies. Additional education on the prevention of oral diseases is needed, but such programs should start in the early years of study. The most common oral diseases, caries, gingivitis, and periodontitis, which can be prevented with a sufficient level of knowledge, can be reduced by intensive campaigns in the promotion of oral health, as well as by providing regular dental examinations and treatments by educators.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, R.M.; methodology, J.V., M.G. and E.A.; investigation, Z.T., J.M. and N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Stomatology in Pancevo, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, (1161/1-2017 from September 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated during the current study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bertolami, C. Rationalizing the dental curriculum in light of current disease prevalence and patient demand for treatment: Form vs. content. J. Dent. Educ. 2001, 65, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cortes, F.J.; Nevot, C.; Ramon, J.M.; Cuenca, E. The Evolution of Dental Health in Dental Students at the University of Barcelona. J. Dent. Educ. 2002, 66, 1203–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yorty, J.S.; Brown, B. Caries risk assessment/treatment programs in U.S. dental schools. J. Dent. Educ. 1999, 63, 745–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Polychronopoulou, A.; Kawamura, M. Oral self—Care behaviours: Comparing Greek and Japanese dental students. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2005, 9, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Polychronopoulou, A.; Kawamura, M.; Athanasouli, T. Oral self-care behavior among dental school students in Greece. J. Oral Sci. 2002, 44, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Kalevski, K.; Gajic, M.; Jevremovic, A.; Borotic, N.; Trifunovic, J.; Jovicic, O.; Milic, J.; Vojinovic, J. The research of health education program efficiency in adjusting the attitudes and behaviours of dental students in the field of oral health. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2021, 78, 935–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kawamura, M.; Honkala, E.; Widström, E.; Komabayashi, T. Cross-cultural differences of self-reported oral health behaviour in Japanese and Finnish dental students. Int. Dent. J. 2000, 50, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ponce-Gonzalez, I.; Cheadle, A.; Aisenberg, G.; Cantrell, L.F. Improving oral health in migrant and underserved populations: Evaluation of an interactive, community-based oral health education program in Washington State. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ghaffari, M.; Rakhshanderou, S.; Ramezankhani, A.; Buunk-Werkhoven, Y.; Noroozi, M.; Armoon, B. Are educating and promoting interventions effective in oral health? A systematic review. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2018, 16, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreno, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. Lancet 2019, 394, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kinane, D.F.; Stathopoulou, P.G.; Papapanou, P.N. Periodontal diseases. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sheiham, A. Improving oral health for all: Focusing on determinants and conditions. Health Educ. J. 2000, 59, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Daly, B.; Watt, R.; Batchelor, P.; Treasure, E. Essential Dental Public Health; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. Almoznino, G.; Aframian, D.J.; Sharav, Y.; Sheftel, Y.; Mirzabaev, A.; Zini, A. Life style and dental attendance as predictors of oral health—Related quality of life. Oral Dis. 2015, 21, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kalevski, K. Modeling of Factors That Determine Attitudes and Behaviors in the Field of Oral Health. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Stomatology Pancevo, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Cvećarska, Novi Sad, 10 December 2018. (In Serbian). [Google Scholar]
  16. Kumar, H.; Behura, S.S.; Ramachandra, S.; Nishat, R.; Dash, K.C.; Mohiddin, G. Oral health knowledge, attitude, and practices among dental and medical students in Eastern India-A Comparative study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2017, 7, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jaber, M.F.; Khan, A.; Elmosaad, Y.; Mustafa, M.M.; Suliman, N.; Jamaan, A. Oral health knowledge, attitude and practices among male Qassim university students. Int. J. Community Med. Public Health 2017, 4, 2729–2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Tete, G.; Sacchi, L.; Camerano, C.; Nagni, M.; Capelli, O.; Varcellini Giuntoli, S.; La Rocca, G.; Polizzi, E. Management of the delicate phase of the temporary crown; an in vitro study. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2020, 34, 69–90. [Google Scholar]
  19. Peker, K.; Uysal, Ö.; Bermek, G. Dental training and changes in oral health attitudes and behaviors in Istanbul dental students. J. Dent. Educ. 2010, 74, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Ciancaglini, R.; Gherlone, E.F.; Radaelli, G. Association between loss of occlusal support and symptoms of functional disturbances of the masticatory system. J. Oral Rehabil. 1999, 26, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Watt, R.G.; Marinho, V.C. Does oral health promotion improve oral hygiene and gingival health? Periodontol 2000, 37, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dagli, R.J.; Tadakamadla, S.; Dhanni, C.; Duraiswamy, P.; Kulkarni, S. Self-reported dental health attitude and behavior of dental students in India. J. Oral Sci. 2008, 50, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Brukiene, V.; Aleksejuniene, J. An overview of oral health promotion in adolescents. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2009, 19, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, H.S.; Ahn, J.; No, J.K. Applying the Health Belief Model to college students’ healthy behavior. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2012, 6, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Polizzi, E.; Tetè, G.; Bova, F.; Pantaleo, G.; Gastaldi, G.; Capparè, P.; Gherlone, E. Antibacterial properties and side effects of chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes. A prospective, randomized clinical study. J. Osseointegr. 2020, 12, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim, K.-J.; Kobayashi, T.; Moon, S.-E.; Goo, K.-M.; Okada, M.; Kawamura, M. Oral health attitudes/behavior and gingival self—Care level of Korean dental Hygiene students. J. Oral Sci. 2001, 43, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kawamura, M.; Iwamoto, Y.; Wright, F.A.C. A comparison of self—Reported dental health attitudes and behavior between selected Japanese and Australian students. J. Dent. Educ. 1997, 61, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Komabayashi, T.; Kwan, S.Y.; Hu, D.Y.; Kajiwara, K.; Sasahara, H.; Kawamura, M. A comparative study of oral health attitudes and behavior using the Hiroshima University-Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) between dental students in Britain and China. J. Oral Sci. 2005, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Al-Wesabi, A.A.; Abdelgawad, F.; Sasahara, H.; El Motayam, K. Oral health knowledge, attitude and behaviour of dental students in a private university. BDJ Open 2019, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hollingworth, W.; Cohen, D.; Hawkins, J.; Hughes, R.A.; Moore, L.A.; Holliday, J.C.; Audrey, S.; Starkey, F.; Campbell, R. Reducing smoking in adolescents: Cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial). Nicotine Tob. Res. 2012, 14, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Dumitrescu, A.L.; Wagle, M.; Dogaru, B.C.; Manolescu, B. Modeling the theory of planned behavior for intention to improve oral health behaviors; the impact of attitudes, knowledge, and current behavior. J. Oral Sci. 2011, 53, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ali, D.A. Assessment of oral health attitudes and behavior among students of Kuwait University Health Sciences Center. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2016, 6, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Badovinac, A.; Božić, D.; Vučinac, I.; Vešligaj, J.; Vražić, D.; Plancak, D. Oral health attitudes and behavior of dental students at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. J. Dent. Educ. 2013, 77, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Abrowska, E.; Letko, R.; Balunowska, M. Assessment of dentition status and oral hygiene in first Year dental students, Medical University of Bialystok. Adv. Med. Sci. 2006, 51, 1. [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Nieuwenhuysen, J.; Carvalho, J.; D’Hoore, W. Interpreting a decrease in DMF score in dental students in Belgium 1989 to 1994. Louvain Med. 1998, 117, 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  36. Manakil, J.; George, R. Reviewing Competency in Dental Education. Int. J. Dent. Clin. 2011, 3, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ahmad, F.A.; Alotaibi, M.K.; Baseer, M.A.; Shafshak, S.M. The Effect of Oral Health Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice on Periodontal Status among Dental Students. Eur. J. Dent. 2019, 13, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Condition of hard dental tissues/DMF.
Table 1. Condition of hard dental tissues/DMF.
Statistical ParametersBefore the Health Education InterventionAfter the Health Education Intervention
Year of StudyingTotal NumberYear of StudyingTotal Number
FirstFourthFirstFourth
N65541196554119
Minimum000000
Maximum151616151616
Mean7.5697.1117.3617.2777.1117.202
S.E. Mean0.5830.5610.4070.5800.5610.405
Std. Deviation4.7044.1194.4354.6794.1194.416
Significance of differences in average values
t-test (independent samples)p = 0.559 p = 0.203
Table 2. Decayed teeth.
Table 2. Decayed teeth.
Statistical ParametersBefore the Health Education InterventionAfter the Health Education Intervention
Year of StudyingTotal NumberYear of StudyingTotal Number
FirstFourthFirstFourth
N65541196554119
Minimum000000
Maximum434323
Mean0.6920.4440.5800.5690.2410.420
S.E. Mean0.1220.1140.0850.1160.0830.075
Std. Deviation0.9830.8390.9250.9350.6120.818
Significance of differences in average values
t-test (independent samples)p = 1.484 p = 2.216
Table 3. Extracted teeth.
Table 3. Extracted teeth.
Statistical ParametersBefore the Health Education InterventionAfter the Health Education Intervention
Year of StudyingTotal NumberYear of StudyingTotal Number
FirstFourthFirstFourth
N65541196554119
Minimum000000
Maximum488488
Mean0.6960.6850.8400.6960.6850.840
S.E. Mean0.1830.1990.1350.1830.1990.135
Std. Deviation1.4791.4641.4731.4791.4641.473
Significance of differences in average values
t-test (independent samples)p = 1.048 p = 1.048
Table 4. Filled teeth.
Table 4. Filled teeth.
Statistical ParametersBefore the Health Education InterventionAfter the Health Education Intervention
Year of StudyingTotal NumberYear of StudyingTotal Number
FirstFourthFirstFourth
N65541196554119
Minimum000000
Maximum131414131414
Mean5.9085.9815.9415.9086.1856.034
S.E. Mean0.4720.4760.3350.4810.4820.341
Std. Deviation3.8033.4993.6533.8803.5453.719
Significance of differences in average values
t-test (independent samples)p = 0.109 p = 0.404
Table 5. State of oral hygiene.
Table 5. State of oral hygiene.
BeforeAfter
Year of StudyingYear of Studying
FirstFourthFirstFourth
Greene–Vermillion
index of
soft deposits
No
Soft
Deposits
Number23245640
%35.4%44.4%86.1%74.0%
Soft
Deposits
Present
Number4230914
%64.6%55.6%13.9%26.0%
TotalNumber65546554
%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
χ2= 1.133 p > 0.05χ2 = 10.846 p < 0.001 *
Greene–Vermillion
index of
solid deposits
No
Tartar
Number19114836
%29.2%20.4%73.8%66.7%
Tartar
Present
Number46431718
%70.8%79.6%26.2%33.3%
TotalNumber65546554
%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
χ2 = 1.285 p > 0.05χ2 = 12.829 p < 0.001 *
* statistically significant.
Table 6. State of oral hygiene.
Table 6. State of oral hygiene.
BeforeAfter
Year of StudyingYear of Studying
FirstFourthFirstFourth
Silness–Löe
plaque
index
No
Dental
Plaque
number23253630
%35.4%46.3%55.4%55.5%
Dental
Plaque
Present
Number42292924
%64.6%53.7%44.6%44.5%
TotalNumber64546454
%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
χ2 = 1.136 p > 0.05χ2 = 0.011 p > 0.05
Table 7. State of the gingiva.
Table 7. State of the gingiva.
BeforeAfter
Year of StudyingYear of Studying
FirstFourthFirstFourth
Silness–Löe
gingival
index
Healthy
Gingiva
Number28193344
%43.1%35.2%50.8%83.0%
Gingiva that
Requires
Treatment
Number3735329
%51.4%48.6%49.2%17.0%
TotalNumber65546553*
%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
χ2= 0.075 p > 0.05χ2 = 9.135 p < 0.001 *
* statistically significant.
Table 8. State of the periodontium.
Table 8. State of the periodontium.
BeforeAfter
Year of StudyingYear of Studying
FirstFourthFirstFourth
CPITN
index
Healthy
periodontium
Number28294029
%43.1%50.9%61.5%53.7%
Periodontium
that
requires
treatment
Number37252525
%56.9%46.3%38.5%46.3%
TotalNumber65546554
%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
χ2= 0.085 p > 0.05χ2 =10.599 p < 0.001 *
* The total number is different because not all students were examined.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kalevski, K.; Vojinovic, J.; Gajic, M.; Aleksic, E.; Tambur, Z.; Milutinovic, J.; Borotic, N.; Mladenovic, R. The Outcomes of an Interventional Oral Health Program on Dental Students’ Oral Hygiene. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413242

AMA Style

Kalevski K, Vojinovic J, Gajic M, Aleksic E, Tambur Z, Milutinovic J, Borotic N, Mladenovic R. The Outcomes of an Interventional Oral Health Program on Dental Students’ Oral Hygiene. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(24):13242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413242

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kalevski, Katarina, Jovan Vojinovic, Milica Gajic, Ema Aleksic, Zoran Tambur, Jovana Milutinovic, Nenad Borotic, and Rasa Mladenovic. 2021. "The Outcomes of an Interventional Oral Health Program on Dental Students’ Oral Hygiene" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 24: 13242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182413242

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop