Effect of an oral health education program based on the use of quantitative light-induced fluorescence technology in Uzbekistan adolescents

Khudanov, Bakhtinur; Jung, Hoi In; Kahharova, Dono; Lee, Jeong Woo; Hamidov, Ilhom; Lee, Eun Song; Kim, Baek Il

doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.01.012

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Excluded studies We excluded 25 studies: fifteen had no educational component; six included university students; and four assessed no predefined outcomes (Figure 1). Duration of follow-up Follow-up for two studies was one month [17,18], and for six studies ranged from one month to three months [19][20][21][22][23][24]; for two studies was from three months to six months [25,26], and a study was followed up after nine months [27]. In one study, follow-up time was not reported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A high risk of bias in assessment of risk of bias was observed in eight studies [17,18,20,[23][24][25][26][27]. The other four studies were at unclear risk of bias [19,21,22,27,29]. Measured outcomes Statistical heterogeneity of studies was assessed through the calculation of tau 2 and I 2 .…”

Section: Overall Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oral health knowledge scores improved significantly more among students receiving the oral health educational intervention compared with students that no receive educational activities (SMD 3.31, 95% CI 2.52 to 4.11; I 2 = 98; P < 0.001) ( Figure 3). Oral health-related attitude Oral health-related attitude of students was evaluated by six studies [17,18,21,23]. Selfadministered questionnaires were applied with Likert scale.…”

Section: Overall Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…43 to 3.54; I 2 = 99; P < 0.001) (Figure 4). Oral health-related behavior Oral health-related behavior of students was evaluated by eight studies [17,18,21,23,25,27]. Eight studies including1909 members of students were combined in a meta-analysis by the authors.…”

Section: Overall Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We meta-analyzed six studies [19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27] and involving 1947 students. Dental plaque scores improved significantly more among students receiving the oral health educational intervention compared with students that no receive educational activities (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.…”

Section: Dental Plaque Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of Educational Interventions on Oral Hygiene: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dadipoor

Ghaffari

New³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of school based oral health interventions programs on students’ oral hygiene, in developing countries through systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Our investigation was conducted in electronic databases including MEDLINE Ovid), Embase Ovid, Scopus), Web of Science from 2000 to march 2018.The data were extracted based on a standard data collection form specific to observational studies, and entered into RevMan 2014. Inclusion criteria included individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs including quasi- experimental studies that were related to oral health interventions. Software RevMan 2014was used for meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. Results: Twelve studies of students in this review finally entered the study including five individual RCTs, four cluster-RCTs, and three quasi-experimental studies. The intervention study period ranged from 1 month to 9 month. Interventions described in the studies briefly included oral health education with activities such as lectures, albums, slides, pamphlets, posters, and role playing. Meta-analyses showed a significant difference in knowledge (SMD 3.31, 95% CI 2.52 to 4.11; I 2 = 98; P < 0.001), attitude (SMD 1.99, 95% CI 0. 43 to 3.54; I 2 = 99; P < 0.001), behavior (SMD 4.74, 95% CI 3.70 to 5.77; I 2 = 99; P < 0.001), plaque index (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.50 to -0. 51; I 2 = 97; P < 0.001) and Gingival index (SMD 0. 33, 95% CI -0. 36 to 1. 02; I 2 = 98; P = 0.34) for students receiving educational interventions compared to those receiving usual care . Discussion: The systematic review concludes that educational interventions are effective for improving oral health knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, etc., which could potentially lead to improved oral health, reduced oral diseases, and reduced costs from treating oral diseases.

show abstract