|Year : 2016 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 449-454
Comparison of Saudi child versus parent-report of child tooth-brushing practices
F Salama1, I Abobakr2, N Al-Khodair3, M Al-Wakeel4
1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontic, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Dentistry, Ministry of Interior, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Dentistry, Saudi Endodontic Board, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
|Date of Acceptance||28-Sep-2015|
|Date of Web Publication||1-Jun-2016|
Prof. F Salama
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontic, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Objective: This cross-sectional study compared Saudi children's tooth-brushing practices as reported by children and parents and then matched the agreement of reports.
Materials and Methods: A sample of 100 Saudi parents and their children of ages 8–12 years participated in this cross-sectional investigation. A self-administered structured questionnaire regarding the current tooth-brushing practice and habits at home was filled by the child. The same questionnaire was filled independently by parents.
Results: Mothers were more likely to teach children about tooth-brushing and fathers were minimally helping children during tooth-brushing. Mothers were the first to teach the children and approximately 33% of the children started brushing their teeth by age 5. Children and parents reported that children clean their teeth using a tooth-brush (73.74% and 76.77%), miswak (5.05% and 5.05%), or both (21.21% and 18.18%), respectively.
Conclusions: There was some agreement between reported tooth-brushing practice of children and their parents. It is important to question both the child and parent regarding oral hygiene practice and compare their answers to get more broad knowledge about their practices. Approximately, one-third of the children started brushing their teeth by age 5, which differs from recommended oral hygiene practices.
Keywords: Dental plaque, oral health education, oral hygiene, patient education, tooth-brushing
|How to cite this article:|
Salama F, Abobakr I, Al-Khodair N, Al-Wakeel M. Comparison of Saudi child versus parent-report of child tooth-brushing practices. Niger J Clin Pract 2016;19:449-54
|How to cite this URL:|
Salama F, Abobakr I, Al-Khodair N, Al-Wakeel M. Comparison of Saudi child versus parent-report of child tooth-brushing practices. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 May 18];19:449-54. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2016/19/4/449/183294
| Introduction|| |
Published research demonstrated that thorough daily plaque removal is important to prevent gingival and periodontal diseases as well as caries., Increased accumulation of dental plaque in the oral cavity directly reflects the lack of effectiveness of tooth-brushing. Proper tooth-brushing should be established early in life because once learned, it is likely that this pattern will continue throughout life. However, although tooth-brushing appears to be an easy and efficient way of removing plaque, studies have shown that brushing time and performance of children are insufficient and change as they grow., Majority of children brush their teeth regularly, but for only 30–45 s.,, Depending on their manual skills and age, teeth may be inadequately cleaned., It was reported that the effectiveness of tooth-brushing is largely dependent on frequency of brushing, the design of the toothbrush, the patient's brushing technique, and the time spent in brushing, which is recommended to be brushing twice daily for 2 min.,
Contemporary model in health promotion such as tooth-brushing include not only education and increasing knowledge, but also require to implement a comprehensive perception and address several elements of oral health., Many factors can influence involvement in oral health-promoting activities such as dental knowledge, feelings, living conditions, attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. It is critical to consider dental knowledge and self-efficacy of parents as low self-efficacy of caregivers was found to result in higher caries rates in their children. A study reported association of the tooth-brushing behavior and dental health of children with their mothers' positive oral health-related attitudes and recommended that the mothers should be a main emphasis of different professionals of oral health. Another study reported that the process of developing tooth-brushing habits of children is not a unilateral from parent-to-children process and it should be conceptualized as an ongoing interaction with bilateral power of influence from both parties.
One method for evaluating tooth-brushing habits of children is through direct observation, which is considered as the gold standard. Another commonly employed method is the utilization of information about children's tooth-brushing practices as reported by parents. One study found significant differences in the reports of mothers regarding the brushing practices of their children when the identical interview was repeated 6 years later, suggesting recall bias. Dependable data are essential for the dentist to assess risk elements for caries, so information of recall bias can weaken this process. For instance, frequency of tooth-brushing per day can be used to estimate the daily fluoride intake of the child from dentifrice. Hence, the excessive reporting of frequency of daily tooth-brushing leads to an over calculation of daily fluoride intake by children. It would be advantageous if information of tooth-brushing practices of children is collected from the patient/child as opposed to only parent-reported information and recall of a particular event to find more accurate data. However, there is a deficiency of studies evaluating whether reports of parents are similar to what is reported by their children. Consequently, a research question arises to evaluate the reliability of information collected from parents and children as follows: Is there agreement between reported children's tooth-brushing practices by parents and children? The null hypothesis tested: There is no difference in Saudi children's tooth-brushing practices as reported by children and parents. Therefore, this cross-sectional study compared Saudi children's tooth-brushing practices as reported by parents and children and matched the agreement of reports.
| Materials and Methods|| |
This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Human Studies at the College of Dentistry Research Center of King Saud University. Participants of this study were a convenience sample of 100 children and their parents who were recruited from patients visiting the pediatric dental clinic at King Saud University College of Dentistry for this cross-sectional questionnaire survey. The sample power for this study was 0.90 with sample size of 50 subjects. Inclusion criteria included Saudi children of both genders, ages 8–12, with no medical condition that causes impaired motor function (i.e., plaster immobilization, psychomotor diseases), cooperative children, and signed consent form by parents.
Demographic data of all children were collected. Parents were asked if and by whom their children were previously instructed on tooth-brushing. Study data were collected using a validated questionnaire with attitudinal items related to different aspects of the current tooth-brushing habits and practices of the child at home. This same self-administered structured questionnaire was filled independently by the child and parents. The questionnaire was composed of nine items. The questionnaire included questions regarding if and by whom the child got help with tooth-brushing, the time the child brushed his/her teeth, and what age the child started brushing alone. In addition, questions regarding the methods used by the child for teeth cleaning (tooth-brush or miswak or both) as well as the type of tooth-brush, whether the child uses fluoride toothpaste and whether the child spits after brushing were included. Participants were also asked questions about the use of tablet PCs and smartphones to plan their future use in educating children about tooth-brushing and oral hygiene.
Children and parents were supervised while undertaking the questionnaire. Assistance in completing the questionnaire was offered when needed by offering a structured interview with uniform prompts. Furthermore, children were asked if they use tablet computers and smart phones in their daily life.
The statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for frequencies distribution of all questions in number and percentage to compare the answers between children and parents. The McNemar test was used to compare the reported frequency of the answers to the questions (level of significance set at 5%).
| Results|| |
100 parents and children (57 boys, 43 girls) enrolled in the study and none withdrew prematurely. The mean age of children was 10.5 (±1.38 standard deviation) years and range was 8–12 years. [Table 1] shows distribution of children by age. Some participants did not answer some questions and therefore missing answers was reported after each table and were not considered in the analyses. Children and parents reported that 92 children (92%) were previously instructed on tooth-brushing. 57% and 41% of the children reported using tablet computers and smart phones, respectively, in their daily life.
Reported answers by children and parents
[Table 2] shows frequency and percentage by which the instruction on tooth-brushing was given. Mothers were more likely to teach children about tooth-brushing as reported by children (57.61%) and parents (64.13%) (P < 0.05). Children and parents reported that 22 (22%) and 43 (43%) (P < 0.05) of the children were getting help during tooth-brushing respectively. [Table 3] shows frequency and percentage of the person who helps the children during tooth-brushing. Mothers were more likely to help children during tooth-brushing as reported by children (86.36%) and parents (95.35%) (P < 0.05). In contrast, fathers were minimally helping children during tooth-brushing as reported by children (9.09%) and parents (4.65%). 98 (98%) children and 99 (99%) parents reported how many times the children brush their teeth [Table 4]. 99 children and 100 parents reported how many minutes the children brush their teeth [Table 5]. Approximately, 48 (48%) of the children were brushing their teeth for only 1 min. For reporting tooth-brushing only once daily, 22 (22.22%) children and 16 (16.16%) parents reported that children brush their teeth in the morning, 14 (14.14%) and 14 (14.14%) in the afternoon, respectively, and 63 (63.64%) and 69 (69.70%) at night, respectively. For reporting tooth-brushing before and after eating, 6 (6.12%) children and 1 (1.02%) parent (P < 0.05) reported that children brush their teeth before eating and 92 (93.88%) and 97 (98.98%) after eating respectively. 98 (98%) children and 99 (99%) parents reported the age when the child started brushing by himself or herself [Table 6]. Approximately, 33% of the children started brushing their teeth by age 5. For the question regarding use of the methods used by the child for teeth cleaning (tooth-brush or miswak or both), 99 children and parents reported that children clean their teeth using a tooth-brush 73 (73.74%) and 76 (76.77%), miswak (a teeth cleaning twig made from the Salvadora persica tree) 5 (5.05%) and 5 (5.05%), or both 21 (21.21%) and 18 (18.18%) respectively. 99 children and parents reported that children use soft-bristled brush 37 (37.37%) and 52 (52.53%) (P < 0.05) respectively. While 9 (9.09%) and 10 (10.10%) reported that children do not use soft-bristled brush and 53 (53.54%) and 37 (37.37%) (P < 0.05) respectively they do not know if they use soft bristled brush or not. Of the 99 children and parents, 37 (37.37%) and 72 (72.73%) (P < 0.05), respectively, reported that children use toothpaste which contain fluoride. While 9 (9.09%) and 7 (7.07%) reported that their children do not use toothpaste which contain fluoride and 53 (53.54%) and 20 (20.20%) (P < 0.05), respectively, they do not know if the toothpaste contain fluoride or not. 99 children and parents reported that their children spit after brushing 89 (89.81%) and 94 (94.95%), respectively.
|Table 2: Comparison of frequency and percentage by whom the instruction on tooth-brushing was given|
Click here to view
|Table 3: Comparison of frequency and percentage of person who help children during tooth-brushing|
Click here to view
|Table 4: Comparison of frequency and percentage of how many times the children brush their teeth|
Click here to view
|Table 5: Comparison of frequency and percentage of how many minutes the children brush their teeth|
Click here to view
|Table 6: Comparison of frequency and percentage of the age when the child started brushing by himself or herself|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
As comparisons of reported frequencies between children and parent in the present study were statistically different on some questions; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Although this study's cross-sectional findings need to be confirmed by repeated research over longer time, the present study is one of the first to compare Saudi children's tooth-brushing practices as reported by children and parents and match the agreement of reporting. Actually reviewing literature did not find any similar research in other countries. The self-administered questionnaire used in the present study was filled independently by the children and parents and it was found that some answers for the same questions were different by them. Therefore, it is important to question both the child and parents regarding tooth-brushing practice and compare their answers to get more broad knowledge about their child's tooth-brushing practice. The present study used a questionnaire as a method of evaluating tooth-brushing practices of the participating children similar to the most widely employed methods, which include interviews and questionnaires.,
Frequency and assistance during brushing
In the present study, 48% of the children were brushing their teeth for only 1 min which is much less than the recommended 2 min., Brushing twice daily for 2 min each assists in plaque removal and decreases risks of periodontal diseases and caries., In the present study, children and parents reported that 22% and 43% of the children were getting help during tooth-brushing, respectively. That is, children almost reported 50% less than parents. It is important to help children during brushing until their manual dexterity allows them better tooth-brushing. It has been shown that parents have to brush their children's teeth at least until school age to ensure optimal oral hygiene. In this study, mother and father were more likely to teach the children's tooth-brushing. If this is the case, educating parents and improving their knowledge in oral hygiene may expand their oral health education and improve the oral hygiene of their children. Such education needs to be culturally appropriate in homes, schools, and clinics.
Timing of tooth-brushing
Approximately, one-third (33%) of the children started brushing their teeth by age 5, which is considered very late as it is recommended to start and implement oral hygiene procedures no later than the time of eruption of the first primary tooth. Children and parents reported that children brush their teeth in the morning 22.22% and 16.16%, in the afternoon 14.14% and 14.14%, and at night 63.64% and 69.70%, respectively. As only two-thirds of the children brush at night, it would be beneficial to encourage and emphasize to have the children brush their teeth at night before bed time.
Knowledge about oral hygiene practice
A large percentage of children and parents in this study reported that they do not know if the children use soft-bristled brush or fluoride toothpaste and that their children brush their teeth before eating 6.12% and 1.02%. The aforementioned oral hygiene practice and behavior highlights the importance of educating children and parents on appropriate oral hygiene practice. Health literacy has been defined as “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions.”; Health literacy should be considered in tooth-brushing practices as there is a strong correlation between health literacy and health status and the use of preventive services. Medical research supports the concept that low parental literacy levels may have detrimental effects on the health care of children. Parents or caregivers are primarily responsible for the oral health behaviors of children in their early years of life and therefore dentists should fully understand the parents' or caregivers' level of oral health literacy and its influence on their children's oral health. A cross-sectional study reported that caregivers of children with reported remarkable oral health status had a higher level of literacy and vice versa. Attempting to alter behaviors and practice of children and parents about the tooth-brushing practices may be enhanced by study of psychosocial influences and their bases is an encouraging area for future oral health research. It would be essential to recommend that children should be educated at an early age on the appropriate methods of proper brushing and oral hygiene.
Education of oral hygiene practice
In the present study, parents reported that 92% of the children were previously instructed on tooth-brushing. It has been suggested that interventions such as a handheld tablet PC or netbooks can be affordable devices that each patient can use individually. This particularly may be beneficial as 57% and 41% of the children reported using tablet computers and smart phones, respectively, in their daily lives. The high percentage of the children who use these devices, encourages their use in educating children about brushing and oral hygiene. Therefore, future research in tooth-brushing may develop an interactive media for tooth-brushing as health promotion for children needs to integrate more interactive and communicating media. The majority of children, including lower socioeconomic and minority children, use computers, play video games, and have cell phones and tablet PCs. Currently, children are attracted to new technology such as tablet PCs and smart phones and the use of such technology as teaching tools are increasing. Some studies have showed a progressive effect of using such new technology as teaching tool.
Limitations of the study
The present study has some limitations. The data collected were by self-reporting and participants may or may not have answered questions about tooth-brushing practice habits honestly. In addition, reports from participants can be biased because of forgotten past events or exaggerated reports of certain habits to appear alert about one's health. Furthermore, this study was completed in a single visit and a long-term follow-up must be completed to decide the consistency of answers regarding tooth-brushing practice habits. Some questions may have also confused participants as to how the child acts and what they believe. This could be a difficulty that can occur in surveys. For example, if a parent believes the correct time of tooth-brushing is 2 min, they may mark this option even if it is not the actual practice or behavior of the child. In addition, questionnaire items could reflect the knowledge of the respondents rather than their real behavior.
| Conclusions|| |
Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that:
- There was some agreement between reported tooth-brushing practice of children and their parents
- Approximately, one-third of the children started brushing their teeth by age 5 years and one-half were brushing their teeth for only 1 min, which differ from recommended oral hygiene practices
- It is important to question both the child and parent regarding oral hygiene practice and compare their answers to get more broad knowledge about their practices
- Children and parents reported that only a moderate percentage of the children use soft-bristled brush and fluoride toothpaste.
Authors would like to thank the College of Dentistry Research Center and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research project.
Financial support and sponsorship
College of Dentistry Research Center and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Sharma NC, Klukowska M, Mielczarek A, Grender JM, Qaqish J. A 4-week clinical comparison of a novel multi-directional power brush to a manual toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque. Am J Dent 2012;25:14A-20A.
Taschner M, Rumi K, Master AS, Wei J, Strate J, Pelka M. Comparing efficacy of plaque removal using professionally applied manual and power toothbrushes in 4- to 7-year-old children. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:61-5.
Alm A, Wendt LK, Koch G, Birkhed D. Oral hygiene and parent-related factors during early childhood in relation to approximal caries at 15 years of age. Caries Res 2008;42:28-36.
Santos AP, Séllos MC, Ramos ME, Soviero VM. Oral hygiene frequency and presence of visible biofilm in the primary dentition. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:64-9.
Sayegh A, Dini EL, Holt RD, Bedi R. Oral health, sociodemographic factors, dietary and oral hygiene practices in Jordanian children. J Dent 2005;33:379-88.
Franzman MR, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. Tooth-brushing and dentifrice use among children ages 6 to 60 months. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:87-92.
Beals D, Ngo T, Feng Y, Cook D, Grau DG, Weber DA. Development and laboratory evaluation of a new toothbrush with a novel brush head design. Am J Dent 2000;13:5A-14A.
Jepsen S. The role of manual toothbrushes in effective plaque control: Advantages and limitations. In: Lang NP, Attstrom R, Loe H, editors. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control: Status of the Art and Science of Plaque Control. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 1998. p. 121-37.
Straub AM, Salvi GE, Lang NP. Supragingival plaque formation in the human dentition. In: Lang NP, Attstrom R, Loe H, editors. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control: Status of the Art and Science of Plaque Control. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 1998. p. 72-84.
Finlayson TL, Siefert K, Ismail AI, Sohn W. Maternal self-efficacy and 1-5-year-old children's brushing habits. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:272-81.
Watt R, Fuller S, Harnett R, Treasure E, Stillman-Lowe C. Oral health promotion evaluation – Time for development. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:161-6.
Reisine S, Litt M. Social and psychological theories and their use for dental practice. Int Dent J 1993;43 3 Suppl 1:279-87.
Saied-Moallemi Z, Virtanen JI, Ghofranipour F, Murtomaa H. Influence of mothers' oral health knowledge and attitudes on their children's dental health. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2008;9:79-83.
Goh EC, Hsu SC. Cross sectional: Bilateral parent-child interactions in school-age children's tooth-brushing behaviors. Pediatr Dent 2013;35:1-7.
Martins CC, Oliveira MJ, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM. Comparison between observed children's tooth brushing habits and those reported by mothers. BMC Oral Health 2011;11:22.
Martins CC, Ramos-Jorge ML, Cury JA, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM. Agreement between data obtained from repeated interviews with a six-years interval. Rev Saude Publica 2008;42:346-9.
Oliveira MJ, Paiva SM, Martins LH, Ramos-Jorge ML, Lima YB, Cury JA. Fluoride intake by children at risk for the development of dental fluorosis: Comparison of regular dentifrices and flavoured dentifrices for children. Caries Res 2007;41:460-6.
Aitken JF, Youl PH, Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, Lowe JB. Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: A randomized crossover study. Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:598-604.
Littman AJ, Boyko EJ, Jacobson IG, Horton J, Gackstetter GD, Smith B, et al.
Assessing nonresponse bias at follow-up in a large prospective cohort of relatively young and mobile military service members. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:99.
Van der Weijden FA, Campbell SL, Dörfer CE, González-Cabezas C, Slot DE. Safety of oscillating-rotating powered brushes compared to manual toothbrushes: A systematic review. J Periodontol 2011;82:5-24.
Clinical Affairs Committee, Guideline on Infant Oral Health Care - Clinical Guidelines American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual. Pediatr Dent 2015-2016;37:146-50.
Clerehugh V, Tugnait A. Diagnosis and management of periodontal diseases in children and adolescents. Periodontol 2000 2001;26:146-68.
Current Bibliographies in Medicine. Health Literacy. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, NLM Publication CBM 2000-1; 2000.
Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, Parikh NS, Pitkin K, Coates WC, et al.
Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA 1995;274:1677-82.
DeWalt DA, Dilling MH, Rosenthal MS, Pignone MP. Low parental literacy is associated with worse asthma care measures in children. Ambul Pediatr 2007;7:25-31.
Miller E, Lee JY, DeWalt DA, Vann WF Jr. Impact of caregiver literacy on children's oral health outcomes. Pediatrics 2010;126:107-14.
Aronson ID, Plass JL, Bania TC. Optimizing educational video through comparative trials in clinical environments. Educ Technol Res Dev 2012;60:469-482.
Baranowski T, Frankel L. Let's get technical! Gaming and technology for weight control and health promotion in children. Child Obes 2012;8:34-7.
Tanaka PP, Hawrylyshyn KA, Macario A. Use of tablet (iPad ®
) as a tool for teaching anesthesiology in an orthopedic rotation. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2012;62:214-22.
Lencová E, Dušková J. Oral health attitudes and caries-preventive behaviour of Czech parents of preschool children. Acta Med Acad 2013;42:209-15.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]