Attitudes and behavior regarding oral hygiene in a group university students: A self-reported

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 448 - 454, 27.12.2020

Mahmut Sertaç Özdoğan Mustafa Gümüşok Esma Sarıçam

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.545065

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bir grup üniversite öğrencisinin,
oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının, diş fırçalama motivasyon ve diş macunu tercihi
faktörlerinin değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve yöntemler: Hastane bazlı bu kesitsel çalışma üniversite öğrencisi 18
yaş üstü 759 diş hekimliği öğrencisi olmayan üniversite öğrencisi hastaya anket
yapılarak gerçekleştirildi. Kendiliğinden bildirim anket oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının
demografisi, süresi ve sıklığı, diş fırçalamada motivasyon kaynağı ve diş
macunu seçiminde etkili faktörler araştırıldı.

İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0.05 olarak kabul
edildi.

Bulgular: Üniversite öğrencileri arasında diş fırçalama motivasyon
kaynağı olarak en çok diş kaybetme korkusu bulunurken, diş macunu seçiminde en
etkili faktörün beyazlatıcı özelliği olduğu tespit edildi. Günlük en az iki
defa fırçalama yapanların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha az sayıda
fırçalama yapanlara göre daha uzun süre fırçalama yaptığı tespit edildi(p<0.05).
Arayüz fırçası kullanım oranı diş fırçalamaya ilaveten %24 olarak bulundu.
Diş fırçalama motivasyonunu etkileyen tüm
faktörlerden anket uygulayıcıları için en önemli faktör diş kaybetme korkusudur.
Diş macunu seçiminde en önemli faktör, üniversite öğrencilerinin çoğunluğu için
beyazlatma özelliğidir.

Sonuç: Diş fırçalamada motivasyon ve diş macunu seçiminde
etkili faktörler göz önünde bulundurularak oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının
geliştirilmesi sağlanmalıdır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Arayüz fırçası, Diş macunu seçimi, Fırçalama, Motivasyon
kaynağı.

Keywords

Arayüz fırçası, Diş macunu seçimi, Fırçalama, Motivasyon kaynağı

Attitudes and behavior regarding oral hygiene among in a group university students: A Self-reported

Abstract

Background:
The
aim of this study is to evaluate the factors of oral hygiene habits, tooth
brushing motivation and toothpaste preference factors.

Materials
and methods:
This cross-sectional study based on the hospital was carried out by surveying 759
university students over 18 years of age. The demographics, duration and
frequency of self-reported questionnaire oral hygiene habits, motivation source
in tooth brushing and effective factors in the selection of toothpaste were
investigated.

The level of
statistical significance was accepted as p <0.05.

Results: As a source of motivation when
brushing among university students, tooth loss was the most common. It was
found that those who brushed the teeth at least twice a day brushed their teeth
significantly longer time than those who brushed the teeth less than twice a
day(p<0.05). The use of the interdental brush was found to be 24% in
addition to tooth brushing. From all the factors
affecting the motivation to brush teeth, the most important factor for the
survey practitioners is the fear of losing teeth. The most important factor for
tooth-paste selection is its whitening feature for the majority of all.

Conclusion: The
development of oral hygiene habits should be ensured considering Motivation in
tooth brushing and effective factors in toothpaste selection.

Keywords: Brushing, Interdental
brush, Motivation source, Toothpaste selection. 

Keywords

Brushing, Interdental brush, Motivation source

References

• 1. https://www.ada.org/en/member-center/oral-health-topics/toothbrushes
• 2. Davies RM, Davies GM, Ellwood RP, Kay EJ. Prevention. Part 4: Toothbrushing: what advice should be given to patients?. Br Dent J 2003; 195: 135.
• 3. Slot DE, Dörfer CE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of interdental brushes on plaque and parameters of periodontal inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 2008; 6: 253-2640
• .4. Addy M, Dummer PM, Hunter ML, Kingdon A, Shaw WC. The effect of toothbrushing frequency, toothbrushing hand, sex and social class on the incidence of plaque, gingivitis and pocketing in adolescents: a longitudinal cohort study. Community Dent Health 1990; 7: 237-247.
• 5. Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA. Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene: interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 759-764.
• 6. Hugoson A, Koch G. Oral health in 1000 individuals aged 3--70 years in the community of Jönköping, Sweden. A review. Swed Dent J 1979; 3: 69.
• 7. Galgut PN. The need for interdental cleaning. Dental health 1991; 30: 8-11.
• 8. Poklepovic T. et al. Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 12.
• 9. Baehni PC, Ve Takeuchi Y. Anti‐plaque agents in the prevention of biofilm‐associated oral diseases. Oral Dis 2003; 9: 23-29.
• 10. Macgregor IDM, Balding JW, Regis D. Motivation for dental hygiene in adolescents. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997; 7: 43-48.
• 11. Regis D, Macgregor IDM, Balding JW. Differential prediction of dental health behaviour by self‐esteem and health locus of control in young adolescents. J Clin Periodontol 1994; 21: 7-12.12. Valkenburg C, Slot DE, Bakker EW, Van der Weijden FA. Does dentifrice use help to remove plaque? A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol, 2006; 43: 1050-1058.13. Van Der Weijden F, Slot DE. Oral hygiene in the prevention of periodontal diseases: the evidence. Periodontol 2000 2011; 55: 104-123.
• 14. Marinho VC, Higgins J, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 1.
• 15. Opeodu OI, Gbadebo SO. Factors influencing choice of oral hygiene products by dental patients in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital. Ann Ib Postgrad Med 2017; 15: 51-56.
• 16. Kırtıloğlu T, Yavuz US. An assessment of oral self-care in the student population of a Turkish university. Public Health, 2006; 120, 953-957.
• 17. Choo A, Delac DM, Messer LB. Oral hygiene measures and promotion: review and considerations. Aust Dent J 2001; 46: 166-173.
• 18. Tseveenjav B, Suominen-Taipale L, Varsio S, Hausen H, Knuuttila M, Vehkalahti MM. Patterns of oral cleaning habits and use of fluoride among dentate adults in Finland. Oral Health Prev Dent 2010; 8: 287-294.
• 19. Twetman S et al. Caries‐preventive effect of fluoride toothpaste: a systematic review. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2003, 61.6: 347-355.
• 20. Tseveejav B, Suominen AL, Hausen H, Vehkalahti MM. The role of sugar, xylitol, toothbrushing frequency,and use of fluoride toothpaste in maintenance of adults‘ dental health: findings from the Finnish National Health 2000 Survey. Eur J Oral Sci 2011;119:40–7.
• 21. Schou L, Currie C, McQueen D. Using a “lifestyle” perspective to understand toothbrushing behaviour in Scottish schoolchildren. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1990; 18: 230-234.
• 22. Azodo C et al. Tooth brushing, tongue cleaning and snacking behaviour of dental technology and therapist students. Libyan J Med 2010; 5: 5208.
• 23. Bashiru BO, Anthony IN. Oral self-care practices among university students in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Niger Med J 2014; 55: 486.
• 24. Peltzer K, Pengpid S. Oral health behaviour and social and health factors in university students from 26 low, middle and high income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11: 12247-12260.
• 25. Saxer UP, Barbakow J, Ve Yankell SL. New studies on estimated and actual toothbrushing times and dentifrice use. J Clin Dent 1998; 9: 49-51.
• 26. Carter-Hanson C, Gadbury-Amycot C, Killoy W. Comparison ofthe plaque removal efficacy of a new flossing aid (Quik Floss) to finger flossing. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:873-878.
• 27. Choo A, Delac DM, Messer LB. Oral hygiene measures and promotion: review and considerations. Aust Dent J 2001; 46: 166-173.
• 28. Warren PR, Ve Chater BV. An overview of established interdental cleaning methods. J Clin Dent 1996; 7: Spec No: 65-69.
• 29. Berchier CE, Slot DE, Haps S, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of dental floss in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 2008; 6: 265-279.
• 30. Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA. Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene: interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 759-764.
• 31. Bouwsma OJ, Yost KG, Baron HJ. Comparison of a chlorhexidine rinse and a wooden interdental cleaner in reducing interdental gingivitis. Am J Dent 1992; 5: 143-146.
• 32. Vani G, Babu MG, Panchanatham N. Toothpaste Brands–A Study of consumer behavior in Bangalore city. JEBS 2010; 1: 27-39.
• 33. Martins CC, Oliveira MJ, Pordeus IA, Cury JA, Paiva SM. Association between socioeconomic factors and the choice of dentifrice and fluoride intake by children. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011; 8: 4284-4299.
• 34. Opeodu OI, Gbadebo SO. Factors influencing choice of oral hygiene products by dental patients in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital. Ann Ib Postgrad Med 2017; 15: 51-56.
• 35. Sarker S, Yousuf S, Monzoor MZ. Influences on brand selection decisions of staple goods: A study on toothpaste users of Khulna city. J World Econ Res 2013; 2: 58-66.
• 36. Yevlahova D, Ve Satur J. Models for individual oral health promotion and their effectiveness: a systematic review. Aust Dent J 2009; 54: 190-197.
• 37. Croxson LJ. Periodontal awareness: the key to periodontal health. Int Dent J 1993; 43: 167-177.
• 38. Towner E. The history of dental health education: a case study of Britain. Oral Health Promotion, Oxford Medical Publications, 1993.
• 39. Petersen PE. The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century–the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31: 3-24.
• 40. Hugoson A, et al. Oral health of individuals aged 3-80 years in Jönköping, Sweden during 30 years (1973-2003). I. Review of findings on dental care habits and knowledge of oral health. Swed Dent J 2005; 29: 125-138.
• 41. Wike´n Albertsson K, van Dijken J. Awareness of toothbrushing and dentifrice habits in regularly dental care receiving adults. Swed Dent J 2010; 34:71–8.