Advertisement

Evaluation of a new method of oral health education in children with cleft lip and palate

  • ACSP Franco
  • LLR Vitor
  • PK Jorge
  • FP Valarelli
  • TM Oliveira
Original Scientific Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of an oral health educational programme in children with cleft lip and palate.

Methods

The sample comprised 38 children with cleft lip and palate: Group 1—dental prophylaxis; Group 2—education and motivation instructions in oral health and plaque control. Children were evaluated during six appointments, at 30-day intervals. The Patient Hygiene Performance (PHP) index was used to assess plaque control. To evaluate the knowledge on oral health a questionnaire was used. Baseline and 6-month PHP scores were compared through Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon tests. The questionnaire scores were analysed through t test and paired-t test.

Results

Baseline PHP indexes between Groups exhibited no statistically significant differences, while the 6-month PHP indices between Groups showed statistically differences (p < 0.001). Group 2 showed statistically significant differences between baseline and 6-month PHP index (p < 0.001). The comparison of Groups questionnaire scores showed no statistically significant differences neither at baseline nor after 6 months. In Group 1, the level of knowledge between baseline and 6-month periods did not show statistically differences, while Group 2 did.

Conclusions

The oral health educational programme improved the plaque control of children with cleft lip and palate.

Keywords

Cleft palate Cleft lip Oral health Health education 

Notes

Funding

The research that led to this article was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board regarding ethical aspects (protocol #639.305-CAAE #10174312.8.0000.5441) and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all caregivers of participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abegg C. Development of behaviours and habits conducive to oral health. Promot Child Oral Health Theory Pract. 2005:93–104.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal N, Pushpanjali K. Feasibility of including APF gel application in a school oral health promotion program as a caries-preventive agent: a community intervention trial. J Oral Sci. 2011;53(2):185–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida ALPF., Esper LA, Pegoraro TA, Valle ALD. Gingival recession in individuals with cleft lip and palate: prevalence and severity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(1):92–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonarakis G, Palaska P-K, Herzog G. Caries prevalence in non-syndromic patients with cleft lip and/or palate: a meta-analysis. Caries Res. 2013;47(5):406–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Antunes LS, Tannure PN, Antunes LAA et al. Genetic association for caries susceptibility among cleft lip and/or palate individuals. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014;15(3):288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brukienė V, Aleksejūnienė J. An overview of oral health promotion in adolescents. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009;19(3):163–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. D’cruz A, Aradhya S. Impact of oral health education on oral hygiene knowledge, practices, plaque control and gingival health of 13-to 15-year-old school children in Bangalore city. Int J Dent Hyg. 2013;11(2):126–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao X, Lo ECM, McGrath C, Ho SMY. Innovative interventions to promote positive dental health behaviors and prevent dental caries in preschool children: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Garbin CAS, Garbin A, Dos Santos K, Lima D. Oral health education in schools: promoting health agents. Int J Dent Hyg. 2009;7(3):212–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Habbu SG, Krishnappa P. Effectiveness of oral health education in children—a systematic review of current evidence (2005–2011). Int Dent J. 2015;65(2):57–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jin L, Lamster I, Greenspan J et al. Global burden of oral diseases: emerging concepts, management and interplay with systemic health. Oral Dis. 2016;22(7):609–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. King NM, Wong WL, Wong HM. Caries experience of chinese children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(4):448–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Moysés ST, Rodrigues CS. Healthy environments: strategies for promotion of children’s oral health. Promot Child Oral Health Theory Pract. 2005:77–91.Google Scholar
  14. Passalacqua A, Reeves A, Newton T et al. An assessment of oral health promotion programmes in the United Kingdom. Eur J Dent Educ. 2012;16:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Podshadley AG, Haley JV. A method for evaluating oral hygiene performance. Public Health Rep. 1968;83(3):259.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Saied-Moallemi Z, Virtanen J, Vehkalahti M, Tehranchi A, Murtomaa H. School-based intervention to promote preadolescents’ gingival health: a community trial. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2009;37(6):518–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Shenoy RP, Sequeira PS. Effectiveness of a school dental education program in improving oral health knowledge and oral hygiene practices and status of 12-to 13-year-old school children. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21(2):253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sushanth V, Krishna M, Babu AS, Prashant G, Chandu G. A peer group approach model of oral health promotion among orphans at Puduchery, South India. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2011;1(2):71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Van den Branden S, Van den Broucke S, Leroy R et al. Effect evaluation of an oral health promotion intervention in preschool children. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(6):893–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckt204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(4):e40.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.4.e40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Wells M. Oral health status of children with craniofacial anomalies. Pediatr Dent. 2013;35(3):79E–86E.Google Scholar
  22. Wells M. Review suggests that cleft lip and palate patients have more caries. Evid Based Dent. 2014;15(3):79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Yazdani R, Vehkalahti MM, Nouri M, Murtomaa H. School-based education to improve oral cleanliness and gingival health in adolescents in Tehran, Iran. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2009;19(4):274–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yekaninejad MS, Eshraghian MR, Nourijelyani K et al. Effect of a school-based oral health-education program on Iranian children: results from a group randomized trial. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012;120(5):429–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • ACSP Franco
    • 1
  • LLR Vitor
    • 2
  • PK Jorge
    • 2
  • FP Valarelli
    • 3
  • TM Oliveira
    • 4
  1. 1.Pediatric Dentist of Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Community Health, Bauru School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  3. 3.Institute of Postgraduate Dental EducationBauruBrazil
  4. 4.Bauru Dental School and the Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial AnomaliesUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil

Personalised recommendations