research proposal on oral hygiene

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Oral Health in America Report: A Public Health Research Perspective

Jane a weintraub , dds, mph.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding Author: Jane A. Weintraub, DDS, MPH, R. Gary Rozier and Chester W. Douglass Distinguished Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Adams School of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric and Public Health, Koury Oral Health Sciences Building, Suite 4508, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450. Telephone: (919) 537-3240. Email: [email protected] .

Corresponding author.

Series information

Peer Reviewed

Collection date 2022.

Preventing Chronic Disease is a publication of the U.S. Government. This publication is in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from this work may be reprinted freely. Use of these materials should be properly cited.

Introduction

In December 2021, the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, released its landmark 790-page report, Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges ( 1 ). This is the first publication of its kind since the agency’s first Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General described the silent epidemic of oral diseases in 2000 ( 2 ). This new, in-depth report, an outstanding resource, had more than 400 expert contributors. Its broad scope is exemplified by its 6 sections ( Box ), each of which includes 4 chapters: 1) Status of Knowledge, Practice, and Perspectives; 2) Advances and Challenges; 3) Promising New Directions; and 4) Summary. In this essay, I provide a public health research perspective for viewing the report, identify some advances and gaps in our knowledge, and raise research questions for future consideration.

Box. Section Titles, Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges ( 1 ).

1. Effect of Oral Health on the Community, Overall Well-Being, and the Economy

2A. Oral Health Across the Lifespan: Children

2B. Oral Health Across the Lifespan: Adolescents

3A. Oral Health Across the Lifespan: Working-Age Adults

3B. Oral Health Across the Lifespan: Older Adults

4. Oral Health Workforce, Education, Practice, and Integration

5. Pain, Mental Illness, Substance Use, and Oral Health

6. Emerging Science and Promising Technologies to Transform Oral Health

Data Needed

A recurring theme in the report is the need for many types of data, from microdata — the molecular, nanoparticle level — to macrodata — the population and global level. Data are needed to guide public health policies and programs at the federal, state, and local levels. Future research using big data from multiple sources (eg, community health needs assessments, surveillance systems, GIS mapping, electronic health records, practice-based research networks) will provide timely, population-based information to evaluate and drive changes to policy and delivery systems and oral health advocacy efforts.

This new report includes descriptive national data from 3 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). To continue monitoring national oral health surveillance data and trends, oral health data need to be included routinely in NHANES and in other large national studies. Too often, questions about oral health are missing from surveys, or clinical oral health data are not collected. For example, very little about oral health was included as part of the planned data collection protocol for the National Institutes of Health All of Us Research Program. This program aims to collect health information from 1 million people ( 3 ). Local and state data are often outdated, incomplete, or unavailable. Most oral health data are cross-sectional and are useful for studying trends and associations, but population-based longitudinal data to study causality and the effectiveness of interventions and policies are sparse.

How does oral health care improve other health conditions? Proprietary claims data from insurance companies ( 4 ) show the inter-relationship between treatment of periodontal disease and systemic conditions, but secondary data analysis has many limitations and confounding factors. Clinical trials show that periodontal treatment improves glycemic control among people with diabetes ( 5 ), but long-term outcome assessments are lacking. We need more answers to convince policy makers and payers about the importance of including comprehensive adult oral health services in publicly financed programs such as Medicaid, which is currently lacking in many states, and Medicare, where those services are missing altogether.

Health Disparities and Social Determinants of Health

Many examples of substantial oral health disparities and inequities are presented in Section 1 of the report. For some conditions and population groups, little improvement has been made, especially among adults and seniors. Section 1 also describes the adverse social, economic, and national security effects of poor oral health, barriers to care, social and commercial determinants of oral health, and related common risk factors. More than the clinical data collected in a typical dental history is needed to understand social determinants and employ local and upstream interventions. The report suggests obtaining social histories from patients to get information about where people live, learn, work, and play. For example, to learn about socioeconomic status, diet, and medications, we want to know not only “What’s in your wallet,” (as touted in a frequent television advertisement) but what’s in your refrigerator? What’s in your medicine cabinet? Telehealth has given clinicians a look inside patients’ homes. Collaboration with social workers, home health aides, and visiting nurses could inform us even more about the home environment. With integrated electronic medical and dental patient records, oral health professionals and medical colleagues can share information. Barriers to integration and assessment of population health outcomes affect many dentists who still use paper records or software specific to dental care that lacks diagnostic codes and interoperability with other health care records systems ( 6 ).

The report highlights the need for more information about adolescents and older adults and other understudied population groups. Section 1 describes many diverse, vulnerable populations (eg, people with special health care needs, low health literacy, mental illness, substance abuse disorders; victims of structural racism) who all need to be included in oral health research. Non-English speakers and hard-to-reach populations that have physical and/or financial barriers to traditional dental care are less likely to be recruited and represented in clinical trials, making results less generalizable and interventions less applicable. The applied research agenda being developed by the American Association of Public Health Dentistry ( 7 ) and the “Consensus Statement on Future Directions for the Behavioral and Social Sciences in Oral Health,” which is based on an international summit ( 8 ), are helpful in setting research and methodologic priorities, including qualitative, implementation, and health systems research.

Individual and Community Relationships

Knowledge about the interrelationships between oral and systemic health has greatly expanded since the 2000 report. About 60 adverse health conditions have now been shown to be associated with oral health ( 1 ), which is part of the rationale for the integration of oral health and primary care. Research will advance our understanding of the mechanisms by which oral and systemic conditions are affected by upstream environmental and social factors, epigenetic factors, and the aging process, both individually and communally. For example, how do external exposures change our microbiomes? Our oral microbiome may be exposed to air containing Sars-CoV-2, water containing protective fluoride, or many kinds of food, beverages, medications, illicit substances, smoked products, and sometimes the biome of close personal contacts. How does the health of a community’s high caries risk groups change with policies such as a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, Medicaid reimbursement changes, or health promotion efforts to improve oral health literacy and dietary behaviors? To what extent will increased application of value-based health care reimbursement with emphasis on disease prevention, early detection, and minimally invasive care improve oral health? Will the World Health Organization’s addition of dental products (eg, fluoride toothpaste, low-cost silver diamine fluoride, glass ionomer cement) to its Model List of Essential Medicines ( 9 ) increase their use to prevent and treat dental caries for under-resourced populations without access to conventional high-cost dental care?

Scientific Advances and Equitable Distribution

The report’s Section 6 describes many exciting advances in biology, biomimetic dental materials, and technology. Rapid advances in salivary diagnostics are providing information about early, abnormal changes in remote organ systems in the body. Advanced imaging techniques and artificial intelligence can be used for early diagnosis of oral lesions before they are visible to the human eye. The validity and accuracy of these techniques need careful evaluation. Can these earlier clinical end points be used to shorten the length of expensive clinical trials? Guide new preventive strategies? At what point do providers intervene with early preventive or therapeutic strategies instead of letting the body heal itself?

Will populations at greatest risk for disease and the greatest barriers to accessing dental care be able to benefit from early intervention? Every intervention has a cost. If access to new prevention and therapeutic discoveries is not equitable, will health disparities worsen? We need community engagement in the research process and the tools from many disciplines to measure and facilitate the best outcomes. The national Oral Health Progress and Equity Network’s blueprint for improving oral health for all includes 5 levers to advance oral health equity: “amplify consumer voices, advance oral health policy, integrate dental and medical [care], emphasize prevention and bring care to the people” ( 10 ).

Educational Opportunities

Who will analyze all these data mined from many micro and macro sources, and who will interpret the data? Health learning systems and complex software algorithms are being developed to provide automated diagnostic information. Data analysts with knowledge of these and other sophisticated tools and modeling approaches are needed.

The dental, oral, and craniofacial research and practice communities increasingly need to be part of interdisciplinary research and educational programs with opportunities for collaboration and learning. Federally qualified health centers and look-alikes are good sites for medical–dental integration, but many of these facilities do not provide dental care.

More positions are needed for dental public health specialists who can lead advocacy efforts, interdisciplinary teams of researchers, clinicians, and community partners and conduct research. For example, the new Dental Public Health Research Fellowship at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research will provide more intensive research training to further advance dental public health and population-based research. Mechanisms are needed to promote, facilitate, and reward sharing of research and training resources across disciplines in our competitive environment.

Public health perspectives are an important part of interdisciplinary approaches to guide, conduct, and apply research and implement policies to improve oral health. Preventive approaches exist as do barriers to their dissemination and implementation. To prevent disease and improve population oral and overall health, systems change and policy reform are needed along with scientific advances across the research spectrum, more population-level data and analysis, and community participatory engagement. I am optimistic that the next Oral Health in America report will describe fewer inequities and more progress toward oral health for all.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on a presentation made in the webinar, Oral Health in America — Advances and Challenges: Reading the Report through a Research Lens , sponsored by the American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research. The author received no financial support for this work and has no conflicts of interest to declare. The statements made are those of the author. No copyrighted materials were used in this article.

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Suggested citation for this article: Weintraub JA. The Oral Health in America Report: A Public Health Research Perspective. Prev Chronic Dis 2022;19:220067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd19.220067 .

• 1. National Institutes of Health. Oral health in America: advances and challenges. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; 2021. Accessed February 23, 2022. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Oral-Health-in-America-Advances-and-Challenges.pdf
• 2. US Department of Health and Human Services. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health; 2000. Accessed February 23, 2022. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2017-10/hck1ocv.%40www.surgeon.fullrpt.pdf
• 3. US Department of Health and Human Services. All of Us Research Hub Research Projects Directory. Updated 2/23/2022. Accessed February 23, 2022. https://www.researchallofus.org/research-projects-directory/?searchBy=workspaceNameLike&directorySearch=oral
• 4. Jeffcoat MK, Jeffcoat RL, Gladowski PA, Bramson JB, Blum JJ. Impact of periodontal therapy on general health: evidence from insurance data for five systemic conditions. Am J Prev Med 2014;47(2):166–74. 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.04.001 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Baeza M, Morales A, Cisterna C, Cavalla F, Jara G, Isamitt Y, et al. Effect of periodontal treatment in patients with periodontitis and diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28:e20190248. 10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0248 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Atchison KA, Rozier RG, Weintraub JA. Integration of oral health and primary care: communication, coordination and referral. Washington (DC): National Academy of Medicine; 2018. Accessed February 21, 2022. https://nam.edu/integration-of-oral-health-and-primary-care-communication-coordination-and-referral/
• 7. Banava S, Reynolds J, Naavall S, Frantsve-Hawley J. Introducing the AAPHD 5-year research agenda. Presentation, National Oral Health Conference, April 12, 2022; Fort Worth, Texas. [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. McNeil DW, Randall CL, Baker S, Borrelli B, Burgette JM, Gibson B, et al. Consensus statement on future directions for the behavioral and social sciences in oral health. J Dent Res 2022;101(6):619–22. 10.1177/00220345211068033 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. World Health Organization. Executive summary: the selection and use of essential medicines 2021: report of the 23rd WHO Expert Committee on the selection and use of essential medicines, virtual meeting, 21 June–2 July 2021. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization. Accessed April 9, 2022. https:// www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPSEML-2021.01
• 10. Oral Health Progress and Equity Network. OPEN blueprint for structural improvement. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://openoralhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/OPEN_FLS_BlueprintOverview_F.pdf
• View on publisher site
• PDF (288.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2021

Perception of oral health and medical conditions as possible predictors of oral health status in visually impaired adolescents: a cross‐sectional study

• Nasrin Sharififard 1 , 2 ,
• Katayoun Sargeran   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7746-0692 1 , 2 &
• Mahdia Gholami 1 , 2  

BMC Oral Health volume  21 , Article number:  89 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

2469 Accesses

5 Citations

Metrics details

We aimed to assess oral health and oral hygiene status among visually impaired adolescents and also to evaluate the factors related to their oral health.

This was a cross-sectional study among 130 visually impaired adolescents in Tehran, Iran, in December 2018. Of three schools for visually impaired children in Tehran, children in the sixth to the tenth grade (aged 12–17 years) were included after obtaining their parents’ consent. WHO oral health questionnaire for children was filled out through face to face interviews. General characteristics were age, gender, status of visual impairment, place of residence, and parental education level. Oral health-related questions were perceived dental and gingival health, dental self-care, dental visits, medical conditions, and dietary habits. Oral examinations included Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index, the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI‑S), and Bleeding on Probing (BOP). Univariate and multiple logistic regression tests were applied using STATA.

The mean age (SD) of the adolescents was 14.45 (1.61) years. The fully blind children were 33.8%, and those with low vision were 66.2%. Regarding the perception of dental and gingival health, nearly half of the adolescents were satisfied. The mean DMFT and decayed component (DT) were 2.43 ± 2.24 and 1.92 ± 2.12, respectively. The frequency of DMFT ≥ 3 was 45.4%. The mean OHI-S was 2.01 ± 0.70, and OHI-S > 1.8 was reported in 60% of children. The prevalence of BOP was 79.2%. DMFT was significantly associated with toothache ( P  = 0.003, OR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.54–9.09), perceived dental health ( P  = 0.005, OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.40–6.67), and medical conditions ( P  = 0.03, OR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.13–8.68). In addition, OHI-S was related to gender ( P  = 0.02, OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15–0.83), perceived dental health ( P  = 0.006, OR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.35–6.12) and medical conditions ( P  = 0.04, OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 1.04–8.97). BOP was associated with perceived gingival health ( P  = 0.02, OR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.18–7.33).

Conclusions

Medical conditions and perceived dental and gingival health are possible predictors for oral health status in these adolescents. Although these children could not visualize caries or gingival bleeding during the brushing time, they could perceive the status of their oral health correctly. Also, being involved in medical problems can make more ignorance of oral health.

Peer Review reports

Visual impairment is an increasing disability, especially in developing countries. In 2020, at least one billion people suffer from vision impairment which could have been prevented or has not received enough attention [ 1 ]. Population growth and aging will increase the risk of vision impairment [ 1 ]. The prevalence of distance vision impairment in low- and middle-income regions was about four times higher than in high-income regions in 2015 [ 2 ]. In Iran age-standardized prevalence of vision loss was estimated at 12.3% in 2015 [ 3 ].

Visually impaired children face some difficulties in oral health maintenance. They cannot visualize visible dental caries or whether gingival bleeding exists during tooth brushing, which consequently affects their oral health status and early dental visit [ 4 ]. In previous studies, poor oral hygiene [ 5 , 6 , 7 ], and gingival bleeding [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] were frequently observed in visually impaired children. High prevalence of dental caries [ 5 ], and frequent trauma to the anterior teeth were also reported for these children [ 7 , 8 , 12 ]. Different factors, such as lack of oral health knowledge [ 5 , 13 ], improper oral hygiene behavior [ 5 ], and irregular dental visits [ 5 , 7 , 9 ] may cause these problems.

In comparison with the general population, the visually impaired children had poorer oral health status [ 5 ], and poorer oral hygiene [ 5 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].

In Iran, studies for visually impaired children are very limited. A study about the oral health of 4–12-year-old visually impaired children showed the mean total DMFT (DMFT + dmft) was 3.7 ± 3.2, and the mean dmft was 4.1 ± 4.3. Normal gingival status without inflammation was observed only in 14.4% of children [ 17 ]. Another study in school children showed that 55% of participants had poor oral hygiene, and among them, 22.7% had dental caries [ 18 ].

A study showed visual impairment had psychological implications, including sadness, anxiety, and depression [ 19 ]. In addition, visually impaired children had more medical conditions compared with sighted peers [ 5 ]. Thus it is necessary to assess the impact of medical conditions (other diseases) on the oral health of visually impaired children.

Oral Health-Related Quality of life (OHRQoL) is affected by several factors in adolescents. These include carious lesions left untreated, specifically lesions with toothache. Moreover, the children’s physical and psychological development as well as school and daily-life achievements may be affected heading to lower OHRQoL [ 20 ].

Adolescence is the age of experiencing autonomy. Therefore, it is a critical period in which adolescents socialize more and act more independently with respect to their health-related issues [ 21 ] With a common increase in BMI during adolescence [ 22 ], the consumption of junk food and drinks high in sugar increases during this period [ 23 ], especially soft drinks [ 24 , 25 ]. The pattern of beverage intake in Iranian adolescents is not favorable [ 26 ]. Oral health habits such as brushing and dental visits decrease from childhood to adolescence [ 27 ]. Thus suitable oral hygiene, healthy dietary patterns, and regular dental check-ups should be promoted during this period [ 20 ].

According to the available data, no study was conducted about the oral health of visually impaired adolescents in Iran. Moreover, the relation between oral health-related factors such as self-perceived oral health, dietary habits, and medical conditions with oral health status is still not clarified for this group. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to assess oral health (DMFT and BOP), and oral hygiene status (OHI-S), among 12–17-year-old, visually impaired school children and evaluate the factors which related to them.

Design, setting, and eligibility criteria

The present study was an analytical cross-sectional study among 130 visually impaired adolescents in Tehran, Iran, conducted in December 2018. Pilot and data collection was done from December 2018 to January 2019. Inclusion criteria were being in the sixth to the tenth grade (aged 12–17 years) and having the parents’ consent. Children were excluded from the study if they were not cooperative, and/or had mental disabilities or were absent at the time of the study. In Iran, girls and boys study in separate schools. There are only three schools for visually impaired children in Tehran which visually impaired children of all districts or even other cities study in. One of these three schools was for girls located in the north of Tehran with 98 students (school 1). The two others were for boys (school 2 and 3): school 2 located in the center of Tehran with 53 students and school 3 located in the west of Tehran with 150 students. Of all three schools for visually impaired children in Tehran, total of 133 children aged 12–17 years were recruited (census), which all had parents’ consent and only three children (2%) were excluded (one student from each school) because they were absent during the research period. All the participants were cooperative, none of them had mental disabilities and none of them refuse to join the study. Thus the inclusion rate of the adolescents of these three schools was 98%. Ultimately 130 adolescents participated in this study. The participants in each school were as follow: school 1, for girls (n = 37); school 2, for boys (n = 25); school 3, for boys (n = 68).

Study variables and data collection

World Health Organization (WHO) oral health questionnaire for children [ 28 ], including oral health-related questions and general characteristics, was filled out through face to face interviews. For every participant, the questions were read one by one followed by the optional answers. If it was necessary, the interviewer repeated the items to understand well. For content validity of the questionnaire for visually impaired children, the questionnaire was filled out for 20 visually impaired children in the eleventh grade and we asked them if there is a need for any changes in the questions according to their special conditions. Finally, two oral health experts reviewed and confirmed the questionnaire validity. The questionnaire showed an acceptable validity with Cronbach alpha coefficient of more than 0.9.

Oral examinations were implemented to assess Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT), the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI‑S), and Bleeding on Probing (BOP). The school children were examined with a headlamp, a disposable mouth mirror and explorer, a WHO periodontal probe, and disposable gloves and masks while they were sitting on a chair in a comfortable position.

General characteristics

The children’s age, gender, grade, the status of visual impairment, place of residence, and their fathers’ and mothers’ education were considered as the general characteristics.

According to the 11th revision of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the severity of vision impairment is classified into six levels: mild vision impairment, moderate vision impairment, severe vision impairment, and three categories for blindness [ 29 ]. In this study, we categorized visual impairment status in two groups: “low vision” for moderate and severe vision impairment, and “blind” for blindness [ 8 ].

Fathers’ and mothers’ education data were collected according to the number of years they spent in school and university. Since after 12 years of education in school, people would get a high-school diploma in Iran, in the analysis, we categorized them into two groups: (1) <12 years (less than a high-school diploma); (2) ≥12 years (a high-school diploma or higher).

Oral health-related questions

Oral health-related questions included the following variables:

perceived dental health status (how would you describe the health of your teeth?),

perceived gingival health status (how would you describe the health of your gums?),

In both “a” and “b” the 7-point Likert scale responses were categorized into two groups: (1) satisfied (excellent, very good, and good); (2) not satisfied (average, poor, very poor, and don’t know) for the analysis.

the frequency of tooth brushing (How often do you clean your teeth?) was dichotomized into (1) at least once a day; (2) less than once a day,

using a toothbrush, toothpaste, and dental floss,

using fluoridated toothpaste (Do you use toothpaste that contains fluoride?) with three responses (1. yes; 2. no; 3. don’t know),

dental visit frequency in the last 12 months (How often did you go to the dentist during the past 12 months?), which were coded as: (1) yes (for at least once); (2) no (not in the past 12 months),

the reason for the dental visit in the last 12 months,

medical conditions dichotomized into two groups: (1) healthy (if there were no other physical or psychological diseases along with visual impairment); (2) not healthy (if there were one or more other physical or psychological diseases along with visual impairment), and (i) dietary habits included 9 questions concerning the consumption of sugary snacks or drinks (fruits, biscuits, cakes, cream, soft drinks, jam and honey, gum with sugar, sweets and candy, milk with sugar, tea with sugar, and coffee with sugar).

In order to evaluate the association between frequency of sugar consumption and oral health status, the answers were scored as follows: several times a day = 6, every day = 5, several times a week = 4, once a week = 3, several times a month = 2, never = 1. Then the sum of the scores for these nine questions was calculated for each child. After that the scores changed into scale 0–100 [ 30 ]. Normality test of the scores showed normal distribution (Shapiro–Wilk test: P  = 0.13). Because of normal distribution of sugar consumption score, mean and median values were very close to each other (mean = 33.69, median = 33.33). So, choosing each one as the cut-off point had the same result [ 31 ]. In this study, we considered the median score of sugar consumption as the cut-off point between the low and high sugar consumption [ 32 ]. Consequently, according to the median score of sugar consumption among 130 study participants, children were categorized into two groups: 1 . low sugar consumption, 2 . high sugar consumption. Participants scoring more than the median score were identified as having high sugar consumption while participants scoring less than or equal to the median score were considered to have low sugar consumption.

The calibration

Oral examinations were carried out by a single examiner. For intra-examiner calibration, 10 children from the 11th grade were examined. Between the two assessments of BOP, there was half an hour break time to resolve previous bleeding (Kappa = 1). The examiner also assessed debris index (DI) and calculus index (CI) for OHI-S. Due to the removal of the debris by the explorer during the first examination, it was not possible to assess DI again. Thus only for CI, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated (ICC = 1). The examiner was calibrated by the WHO Oral Health Surveys Basic Methods for DMFT assessment ( 33 ). ICC for DMFT was 0.90.

Clinical examinations

Caries experiences assessed through DMFT index were dichotomized into two groups (DMFT < 3, and DMFT ≥ 3) [ 20 , 34 ]. Oral hygiene was assessed by OHI-S [ 35 ], which consisted of DI and CI. Six permanent tooth (3, 8, 14, 19, 24, and 30) surfaces were scored on a scale of 0 to 3. The mean scores indicated as DI and CI [ 35 , 36 ]. The sum of DI and CI was defined as OHI-S, which was then categorized into two groups for analysis: (OHI-S ≤ 1.8, and OHI-S > 1.8). Since, in the present study, only 6.9% of the children had poor OHI-S (> 3), and none of them had poor CI (> 1.8), we dichotomized OHI-S based on the scoring for poor DI (> 1.8) [ 8 ].

To assess BOP, buccal and mediobuccal surfaces of all teeth in the first to the fourth quadrants were examined by the WHO periodontal probe. The presence of local or general bleeding was coded as yes, and the absence of bleeding was indicated as no [ 37 ].

Statistical analyses

The STATA software version 14 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) was used for data analysis. Univariate regression test was applied to identify the association between independent variables and categorical outcomes. To consider cluster effect of schools, we used mixed effect model in which clusters entered as random effect in the model. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify which variables were associated with outcomes in the presence of other variables to indicate possible predictors. If the P value for the association of variables was less than 0.2 by testing with univariate, it was included in the multiple regression analysis [ 38 , 39 ]. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethics statement

The Tehran University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study (IR.TUMS.DENTISTRY.REC.1397.104). Before the study written informed consent was obtained from the parents. In addition, the children gave “assent” to be sure they were happy to participate in the study.

Descriptive results

General characteristic.

In the three schools for blinds in Tehran, all 133 adolescents (12–17 years old) agreed to participate in the study. However, three children were excluded because they were absent during the data collection time. Ultimately, the data for 130 children were analyzed.

The mean age (SD) of the children was 14.45 (1.61) years (range: 12–17 years). The study participants included 93 male (71.5%) and 37 female children (28.5%). Fully blind children comprised 33.8% of the respondents, and the rest of the children had a low vision (66.2%). More children (68.5%) resided at home than the dormitory. About half of the participants’ mother or father were educated less than a high-school diploma (Table  1 ).

Oral health‐related variables

About half of the children were satisfied with their dental (49.2%) and gingival health (50%). Among the children, 47.7% brushed their teeth once a day. Only 15.4% brushed their teeth twice and more. Some children (7.7%) reported that they never brush their teeth. Most of the children used toothbrushes and toothpaste (94.6%, and 90%, respectively). However, only 20.8% reported using dental floss to clean the interdental spaces. Among all the participants, 65.4% had no knowledge if their toothpaste contained fluoride. Some children (30%) often or occasionally experienced toothache in the last year. Among children, 13.8% never had a dental visit in their life. Only 30.8% had a dental visit in the last 12 months, which more than half of them reported pain was the main reason for their dental visit.

Most of the children (N = 106, 81.5%) were in good medical conditions (healthy). However, 18.5% of the participants had medical problems including auditory impairment (n = 3, 2.31%); heart problem, epilepsy, gastrointestinal disease, kidney disease (for each disease n = 2, 1.54%); anemia, diabetes, favism, migraine, cancer, Wolfram syndrome, hypothyroidism, asthma, Wegener’s syndrome, hydrocephaly (for each disease n = 1, 0.77%); and other diseases (n = 3, 2.31%). Children reported daily consumption of fruit (n = 80, 61.5%), biscuits, cakes and cream (n = 37, 28.5%), jam or honey (n = 30, 23.1%), tea with sugar (n = 66, 50.8%), and other nutritional items (≤ 4%). The range of sugar consumption score was 2.22–68.89. Categorizing to low and high sugar consumption according to the median score among participants (median = 33.33), showed that 56.2% (n = 72) had high sugar consumption.

Caries experience

The average scores of DMFT and DT (SD) in this study were 2.43 ± 2.24 and 1.92 ± 2.12, respectively. The prevalence of caries experience was 72.3% (n = 94). DMFT for approximately half of the participants (45.4%) was three or more (DMFT ≥ 3). The DT formed the largest contribution to DMFT. Only 27.7% of the children were caries-free, and 62.3% had at least one decayed tooth. Also, 3.1% had at least one missed tooth, and 20.8% had at least one filled tooth (Table  2 ).

Oral hygiene

The mean OHI-S (SD) was 2.01 (0.70). Of all the participants, 41.5% had fair DI (0.7–1.8). Also, 92.3% had good (0-0.6), and none of them had poor CI (1.9–3). OHI-S > 1.8 was reported in 60% (n = 78) of the children (Table  2 ).

Bleeding on probing

The prevalence of BOP was 79.2% among the children (Table  2 ).

Analytical results

In order to identify factors related to oral health status, we analyzed the data collected using the questionnaire with univariate test. The results showed that gender ( P  = 0.04, OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.02–4.83) (Table  3 ), toothache in the past 12 months ( P  = 0.001, OR = 4.15, 95% CI: 1.85–9.28) and perceived dental health ( P  = 0.001, OR = 3.64, 95% CI: 1.76–7.55) (Table  4 ) significantly affected the status of dental caries in visually impaired schoolchildren. The frequency of DMFT ≥ 3 was higher in girls than in boys (Table  3 ). Also OHI-S > 1.8 was associated with gender ( P  = 0.04, OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20–0.97) (Table  3 ), and perceived dental health ( P  = 0.009, OR = 2.63, 95% CI: 1.28–5.43) (Table  4 ). OHI-S > 1.8 was less frequent in girls than in boys (Table  3 ). The prevalence of BOP was higher among children whose perceived gingival health status was reported as “not satisfied” ( P  = 0.02, OR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.18–7.33) (Table  4 ). Partially blind children showed higher DMFT than fully blind but the difference was not significant ( P  = 0.07) (Table  3 ).

Multiple regression analysis of outcomes

A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was executed to estimate the relationship between DMFT ≥ 3, OHIS > 1.8, and BOP as dependent variables and various independent variables (Table  5 ). DMFT ≥ 3 showed an association with toothache in the past 12 months ( P  = 0.003, OR = 3.70, 95% CI: 1.54–9.09), perceived dental health ( P  = 0.005, OR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.40–6.67), and medical conditions ( P  = 0.03, OR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.13–8.68). OHIS > 1.8 had an association with gender ( P  = 0.02, OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15–0.83), perceived dental health ( P  = 0.006, OR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.35–6.12), and medical conditions ( P  = 0.04, OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 1.04–8.97). BOP had only a relation with perceived gingival health ( P  = 0.02, OR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.18–7.33). Among these factors, having a toothache, not satisfied perceived dental and gingival health, and having medical problems, were possible risk factors while being female was a possible protective factor against OHI-S > 1.8. Possible predictors that remained in the model were illustrated in Table  5 .

There was no statistically significant association between the medical conditions and DMFT ( P  = 0.07) and OHI-S ( P  = 0.10) in univariate analysis (Table  4 ). However, multiple logistic regression revealed that DMFT ≥ 3 and OHI-S ≥ 1.8 were statistically more frequent in children who suffered a medical problem as compared with healthy children.

Caries experience, oral hygiene, and gingival bleeding in visually impaired adolescents were associated with perceived dental or gingival health, medical conditions, toothache, and gender.

In the present study, most of the children used toothbrush and toothpaste, but rarely used dental floss, which is in accordance with previous studies [ 14 , 15 , 40 , 41 ]. However, daily brushing occurred less frequently in our study compared with most other studies [ 14 , 15 , 40 ]. Despite the fact that all kinds of toothpaste contain fluoride in the Iranian market, most of the children had no idea if their toothpaste contained fluoride, which showed a lack of knowledge in this regard.

Our results showed that toothache had the greatest association with DMFT, which was in line with previous studies [ 9 , 42 ]. We found that most of the children had an irregular dental visit unless they had to have a dental appointment due to toothache. A cohort study showed that the percentage of children visiting the dentist at least once a year decreased with age, especially in late adolescence [ 43 ]. These results are consistent with the findings of Parkar and colleagues who showed the decay component formed the major component of the index, while the filled component was almost negligible [ 15 ]. We speculated this could be associated with difficulty in access to dental facilities and the cost of treatments, which indicates the necessity of special prevention programs for these children.

A high proportion of decayed teeth observed in the present study is in line with previous studies conducted for visually impaired children [ 7 , 8 , 14 , 40 , 42 ]. The prevalence of caries-free in our study (27.7%) is comparable to caries-free children (7–16-year-old) in Turkey (26.40%) [ 6 ].

Despite the fact that 93.1% of the visually impaired adolescents had good or fair oral hygiene status, a high prevalence of gingival bleeding was observed in this study, which is in line with previous studies [ 9 , 11 , 40 ]. In a national oral health survey conducted on the Iranian population in 2011–2012, gingival bleeding was observed among 26.9% of 12-year-old children and 33.8% of 15-year-old children [ 44 ]. Accordingly, gingival bleeding in visually impaired children (79.2%) is more frequent than the general Iranian population. We speculated that the high rates of gingival bleeding in visually impaired children could be associated with inappropriate tooth brushing in all sites, which could result in the insufficient clearing of teeth.

In the present study, DMFT was higher in girls in univariate analysis, which is in line with a study in China [ 9 ] but in contrast with the study by Solanki and co-workers. Also, according to the last national survey in Iran (2012), girls had higher DMFT than boys in both 12- and 15-year-old general population [ 44 ].

Better oral hygiene in girls in our study is consistent with the report by Parkar and colleagues [ 15 ], which can be in agreement with decreasing the percentage of twice tooth brushing per day with age for males and increasing with age for females in sighted children [ 43 ].

In our study, 18.5% of children had medical problems. This finding is comparable to a study by Alsadhan and others [ 5 ]. Medical conditions showed significant association with caries experience and oral hygiene. This association indicated that when the main focus is kept predominantly on managing medical problems, oral health is mostly neglected. Thus, oral health care should be approached jointly with general health care in order to achieve a more holistic view of these conditions.

There are too limited data about dietary habits and their relations with oral health in visually impaired children. Suresan and colleagues found an association between DMFT/dmft and solid or sticky sugars [ 7 ]. However, no association between DMFT and the frequency of sugar consumption was found in our study, which was in agreement with results reported by Wening and co-workers for sighted children [ 45 ] due to multifactorial features of caries. A study on sighted adolescents in Iran showed sweetened soft beverages had been consumed by 25.6% of the participants with a significant effect on DMFT [ 26 ]. However, in our study, only one child reported daily use of soft drinks. Maybe it is because visually impaired children had less chance to demand snacks or soft drinks in the market, so restricting sugar consumption for them is easier than the general population. Tehran is a multicultural city which people emigrate from different areas of the country to live there. In addition, some of the students who resided at dormitory, were from other cities. So we expect the study results could be generalized to all schools for visually impaired children in Iran. However, conducting further studies at national level is recommended to check for wider generalizability.

Limitations

The use of a cross-sectional design to investigate associations, the small sample size and the lack of comparison group were some of the limitations of this study. In addition, through the face to face interview, the participant may hide the truth to present him/herself in a good manner. The use of the median of the sugar consumption to categorize low and high sugar consumption is another limitation as this cut-off would be only applicable to the studied population, which limits comparison with other studies. Meaningful comparisons between previous studies are limited because most of them have been conducted in a wide age range (usually all grades in schools) and in different countries with different cross-cultural differences in living standards, dietary habits, and genetic predisposition. Consequently, more studies for visually impaired adolescents are needed to further verify our findings.

Most of the studies for visually impaired school children are conducted in a wide age range or in a small population. The present study was designed for visually impaired adolescents with an appropriate sample size to assess their oral health status.

Medical conditions and perceived dental and gingival health are possible predictors for oral health status in visually impaired adolescents. Although they could not visualize caries or gingival bleeding during brush time, they could perceive the status of their oral health correctly. Also involving in medical problems can make more ignorance of oral health in this group of children.

The frequency of untreated caries indicated that it was imperative as a public health issue to be targeted by effective oral health promotion programs to improve access to oral healthcare services among these children and to increase the use of appropriate caries-preventing methods along with medical care.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Oral Hygiene Index‑Simplified

Decayed, missing, and filled teeth

Calculus index

Debris index

Decayed teeth

Missing teeth

Filled teeth

Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA

Intra-class correlation coefficient

95% confidence interval

Standard deviation

The 11th revision of international classification of diseases

World Health Organization

OHRQoLOral Health-Related Quality of Life

World Health Organization: Blindness and vision impairment. Geneva: WHO; 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.

Bourne RRA, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, Das A, Jonas JB, et al. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(9):e888-97.

Article   Google Scholar  

GBD 2015 Eastern Mediterranean Region Vision Loss Collaborators. Burden of vision loss in the Eastern Mediterranean region, 1990–2015: findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2015 study. Int J Public Health. 2018;63(1):199–210.

Ningseh T, Corresponding M, Omar R, Raja J, Abdul M, Lumpur K. Self-reported oral hygiene practices and periodontal status of visually impaired adults. Glob J Health Sci. 2010;2(2):184–91.

Google Scholar  

AlSadhan SA, Al-Jobair AM, Bafaqeeh M, Abusharifa H, Alagla M. Dental and medical health status and oral health knowledge among visually impaired and sighted female schoolchildren in Riyadh: a comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):154.

Bekiroglu N, Acar N, Kargul B. Caries experience and oral hygiene status of a group of visually impaired children in Istanbul, Turkey. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2012;10(1):75–81.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Suresan V, Das D, Jnaneswar A, Jha K, Kumar G, Subramaniam GB. Assessment of dental caries, oral hygiene status, traumatic dental injuries and provision of basic oral health care among visually impaired children of Eastern Odisha. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017;35(4):284.

Tagelsir A, Khogli AE, Nurelhuda NM. Oral health of visually impaired schoolchildren in Khartoum State, Sudan. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:33.

Liu L, Zhang Y, Wu W, He M, Lu Z, Zhang K, et al. Oral health status among visually impaired schoolchildren in Northeast China. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:63.

Shetty V, Hegde A, Bhandary S, Rai K. Oral health status of the visually impaired children—a South Indian study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;34(3):213–6.

Jain A, Gupta J, Aggarwal V, Goyal C. To evaluate the comparative status of oral health practices, oral hygiene and periodontal status amongst visually impaired and sighted students. Spec Care Dent. 2013;33(2):78–84.

Reddy KV, Sharma A. Prevalence of oral health status in visually impaired children. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):25–7.

Puteri MM, Ruslan FK, Wibowo TB. Oral health behavior and its association with the Caries Index in visually impaired children. Spec Care Dent. 2020;40(1):79–83.

Solanki J, Gupta S, Arora G, Bhateja S. Prevalence of dental caries and oral hygiene status among blind school children and normal children, Jodhpur City: a comparative study. J Adv Oral Res. 2013;4(2):1–5.

Parkar SM, Patel N, Patel N, Zinzuwadia H. Dental health status of visually impaired individuals attending special school for blind in Ahmedabad city, India. Indian J Oral Sci. 2014;5(2):73–7.

Ozdemir-Ozenen D, Sungurtekin E, Cildir S, Sandalli N. A comparison of the oral health status of children who are blind and children who are sighted in Istanbul. J Vis Impair Blind. 2012;106(6):362–7.

Tahani B, Mojahedi M, Heidary AS. Assessment of oral hygiene habits and oral health status in 4–12-year-old visually impaired children in Isfahan. J Isfahan Dent Sch. 2015;11(5):414–24 (In Persian).

Ahmad MS, Jindal MK, Khan S, Hashmi SH. Oral health knowledge, practice, oral hygiene status and dental caries prevalence among visually impaired students in residential institute of Aligarh. J Dent Oral Hyg. 2009;1(2):022–6.

Ishtiaq R, Chaudhary MH, Rana MA, Jamil AR. Psychosocial implications of blindness and low vision in students of blind psychosocial implications of blindness and low vision in students of a school for children with blindness. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(2):431–4.

Eid SA, Khattab NMA, Elheeny AAH. Untreated dental caries prevalence and impact on the quality of life among 11 to14-year-old Egyptian schoolchildren: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:83.

McKeown A, Nelson R. Independent decision making of adolescents regarding food choice. Int J Consum Stud. 2018;42(5):469–77.

Ohlsson C, Bygdell M, Sondén A, Jern C, Rosengren A, Kindblom JM. BMI increase through puberty and adolescence is associated with risk of adult stroke. Neurology. 2017;89(4):363–9.

Skeie G, Sandvær V, Grimnes G. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages in adolescents from Troms, Norway—the Tromsø study: fit futures. Nutrients. 2019;11(2):211.

Kelishadi R, Qorbani M, Motlagh ME, Ardalan G, Heshmat R, Hovsepian S. Socioeconomic disparities in dietary and physical activity habits of Iranian children and adolescents: the CASPIAN-IV study. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19(8):530–7.

Mirmiran P, Yuzbashian E, Asghari G, Hosseinpour-Niazi S, Azizi F. Consumption of sugar sweetened beverage is associated with incidence of metabolic syndrome in Tehranian children and adolescents. Nutr Metab. 2015;12(1):25.

Hasheminejad N, Malek Mohammadi T, Mahmoodi MR, Barkam M, Shahravan A. The association between beverage consumption pattern and dental problems in Iranian adolescents: a cross sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:74.

Leary SD, Do LG. Changes in oral health behaviours between childhood and adolescence: findings from a UK cohort study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2019;00:1–7.

WHO. Oral health surveys: basic methods, 5th edn. Annex 8: World Health Organization, Oral Health Questionnaire for Children. 2013. https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/9789241548649/en/ . Accessed 18 May 2020.

ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Version: 04/2019. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1103667651 . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.

WHO. Oral health surveys: basic methods, 5th edn. 2013:76. https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/9789241548649/en/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.

Ahsanullah M, Kibria BG, Shakil M. Normal distribution. In: Normal and student´ st distributions and their applications. Paris: Atlantis Press; 2014. p. 7–50.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Mohamed HG, Mustafa K, Ibrahim SO, Åstrøm AN. Dietary habits, oral impact on daily performance and type 2 diabetes: a matched case-control study from Sudan. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):111.

WHO. Oral health surveys: basic methods, 5th edn. Annex 2: World Health Organization, Oral Health Assessment Form for Children. 2013. https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/9789241548649/en/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2020.

Al-Darwish M, El Ansari W, Bener A. Prevalence of dental caries among 12–14 year old children in Qatar. Saudi Dent J. 2014;26(3):115–25.

Greene JG, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964;68(1):7–13.

Kolawole KA, Folayan MO. Association between malocclusion, caries and oral hygiene in children 6 to 12 years old resident in suburban Nigeria. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:262.

Zimmermann H, Hagenfeld D, Diercke K, El-sayed N, Fricke J, Greiser KH, et al. Pocket depth and bleeding on probing and their associations with dental, lifestyle, socioeconomic and blood variables: a cross-sectional, multicenter feasibility study of the German National Cohort. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:7.

Alavi SS, Mohammadi MR, Souri H, Kalhori SM, Jannatifard F, Sepahbodi G. Personality, driving behavior and mental disorders factors as predictors of road traffic accidents based on logistic regression. Iran J Med Sci. 2017;42(1):24–31.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2013.

Book   Google Scholar  

John JR, Daniel B, Paneerselvam D, Rajendran G. Prevalence of dental caries, oral hygiene knowledge, status, and practices among visually impaired individuals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. Int J Dent. 2017;2017(5):1–6.

Singh A, Kumar A, Berwal V, Kaur M. Comparative study of oral hygiene status in blind and deaf children of Rajasthan. J Adv Med Dent Sci. 2014;2(1):26–31.

Singh A, Dhawan P, Gaurav V, Rastogi P, Singh S. Assessment of oral health-related quality of life in 9–15 year old children with visual impairment in Uttarakhand, India. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2017;14(1):43–9.

Leary SD, Do LG. Changes in oral health behaviours between childhood and adolescence: findings from a UK cohort study. 2019;(December 2018):1–7.

Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran. 2012. http://iranoralhealth.ir/1395/07/13/ . Accessed 18 May 2020.

Wening GR, Bramantoro T, Palupi R, Ramadhani A, Alvita D. Overview of dental caries severity and body mass index (BMI) on elementary school children. J Int Oral Health. 2019;11:48–55.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Research Center for Caries Prevention, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Community Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Grant No. 98-01-194-40584). The funder has not influenced the research in any means and the research has been carried out independently.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Community Oral Health, Research Center for Caries Prevention, Dentistry Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Nasrin Sharififard, Katayoun Sargeran & Mahdia Gholami

Department of Community Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, North Kargar Ave, 1439955991, Tehran, Iran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NSh, KS and MG contributed to the design and conceptualization of the study; NSh and KS contributed to data collection; NSh and KS contributed to data analysis; NSh, KS, and MG contributed in writing and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript; and agreed to be responsible for all aspects of the study including the accuracy of the work done.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katayoun Sargeran .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Tehran University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee approved the study (IR.TUMS.DENTISTRY.REC.1397.104). We proposed the information sheet about the study to the subjects, and written informed consent obtained from parents.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sharififard, N., Sargeran, K. & Gholami, M. Perception of oral health and medical conditions as possible predictors of oral health status in visually impaired adolescents: a cross‐sectional study. BMC Oral Health 21 , 89 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01447-w

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2020

Accepted : 18 February 2021

Published : 27 February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01447-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Oral health
• Visually impaired
• Adolescents
• School children

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A qualitative study of the multi-level influences on oral hygiene practices for young children in an Early Head Start program

Tracy l finlayson, markjason cabudol, jenny x liu, jeremiah r garza, stuart a gansky, francisco ramos-gomez.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Contributed equally.

Received 2019 Mar 15; Accepted 2019 Jul 18; Collection date 2019.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Individual child-level risk factors for Early Childhood Caries (ECC) have been studied, but broader family- and community-level influences on child oral hygiene behaviors are less well understood. This study explored multiple levels of influence on oral hygiene behaviors for young children in Early Head Start (EHS) to inform a future behavioral intervention targeting children from low-income families.

Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers of children under 4 years old, enrolled in the home visitor (HV) component of one EHS program in Los Angeles, CA, who participated in the BEhavioral EConomics for Oral health iNnovation pilot study (BEECON) in 2016–7. Audio-recordings of interviews were translated if needed, and transcribed in English, and coding and analysis was facilitated by Dedoose qualitative software. This investigation used general thematic analysis guided by the Fisher-Owens child oral health conceptual framework to identify influences on oral hygiene behaviors for the young children.

Many mothers reported brushing their children’s teeth twice/day, and concern that most children frequently resisted brushing. They identified children being sick or tired/asleep after outings as times when brushing was skipped. Several child-, family-, and community-level themes were identified as influences on child oral hygiene behaviors. At the child-level, the child’s developmental stage and desire for independence was perceived as a negative influence. Family-level influences included the mother’s own oral hygiene behaviors, other family role models, the mother’s knowledge and attitudes about child oral health, and mothers’ coping skills and strategies for overcoming challenges with brushing her child’s teeth. Overall, mothers in the EHS-HV program were highly knowledgeable about ECC risk factors, including the roles of bacteria and sugar consumption, which motivated regular hygiene behavior. At the community-level, mothers discussed opportunities to connect with other EHS-HV families during parent meetings and playgroups that HV coordinated. A few mothers noted that EHS-HV playgroups included brushing children’s teeth after snacking, which can be a potential positive influence on children’s hygiene practices.

Child-, family- and community-level factors are important to consider to inform the development of tailored oral health preventive care programs for families in EHS-HV programs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-019-0857-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Oral hygiene, Qualitative, Early head start, Preschool-age children, Mothers, Home visitors

Early Childhood Caries (ECC) is a multi-factorial disease, and remains a prevalent health problem in the United States (US) that disproportionately affects young children in lower income families and those from racial/ethnic minorities [ 1 – 3 ]. According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), ECC is defined as “the presence of one or more decayed (noncavitated or cavitated lesions), missing (due to caries), or filled tooth surfaces in any primary tooth in a child 71 months of age or younger.” [ 4 ] The Fisher-Owens and colleagues’ conceptual framework identified five health determinant domains—genetic and biological factors, social environment, physical environment, medical and dental care system, and health behaviors [ 5 ]—that can influence a child’s oral health status over time, operating at child-, family-, and community-levels (see model Figure at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/120/3/e510/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 ). While several domains identified in the Fisher-Owens and colleagues’ framework are either non-modifiable (e.g., genetics/biology) or more challenging to change without systematic efforts or policy interventions (e.g., social and physical environments, the healthcare system), health-influencing behaviors can readily be modified to improve oral health status. Behavior change has been an intervention focal point for ECC prevention among children in the last two decades, but results have varied [ 6 , 7 ]. Developing effective early preventive programs for children in high-risk families remains a priority.

For infants and young children, parents primarily drive oral hygiene routines. Mothers are often primary caregivers, playing a key role in cleaning infants’ mouths and brushing children’s teeth [ 8 – 10 ]. While the AAPD recommends starting to clean an infant’s teeth as soon as they erupt [ 11 ], this is not common knowledge or practice in many families [ 12 ]. Even when parents report knowing they should clean a young child’s mouth, gums, and teeth, and know ECC risk factors, cleaning and brushing regularly remains challenging, with parents identifying many barriers relating to the family environment [ 13 , 14 ].

Poor oral hygiene behavior is an established risk factor for developing ECC [ 15 ]. Educating parents on proper hygiene techniques, including daily brushing, is necessary for promoting children’s oral health starting in early childhood and preventing ECC from developing into cavities later in life [ 16 , 17 ]. Previous research has focused on individual child-level ECC risk factors, but broader family- and community-level influences on ECC and young children’s oral hygiene behaviors are less well understood [ 9 ]. Castilho and colleagues recently reviewed family-level influences on child oral health, finding parents’ dental beliefs and habits affected their children, and interventions should address the entire family and home context [ 18 ]. Notably, nationwide, many infants and toddlers spend substantial time outside their homes, in preschools, or with relatives, being cared for by non-parental caregivers [ 19 ]. Preschool programs which are well-positioned to influence child and family oral health practices should be explored; this is particularly true for programs that also deliver curriculum beyond the classroom at children’s homes, working closely with parents and families in their own environment to promote child health.

Early Head Start (EHS) is a federally-regulated US public program providing comprehensive social, educational, and health services for low-income pregnant women and children age three or younger [ 20 ]. Federal oral health performance standards promote preventing and treating children’s oral health problems [ 21 , 22 ]. EHS program services can be delivered as home-based care, center-based care, family childcare (licensed providers offer care in their homes), or a combination. Home-based EHS programs, which represent 36% of all US, and 50% of California, EHS-funded enrollment slots employ Home Visitors (HVs). A dedicated HV visits weekly [ 23 ] for 90-min and leads two group socialization activities per month for families. HVs incorporate oral health strategies and activities into their lesson plans, which include promoting early and regular oral health examinations at a dental home (regular provider of comprehensive oral health care [ 24 ]), toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste according to age-specific recommendations, and educating parents about their children’s oral health [ 25 – 28 ]. Thus, EHS programs present an important opportunity to identify, target, and efficiently reach parents of young children at high ECC risk.

Prior EHS program research documented mandated programmatic activities to promote oral health are not always optimally implemented. Kranz and colleagues found low participation in oral health activities in North Carolina EHS programs [ 29 ]. They identified EHS program staff factors like high knowledge and efficacy as positively associated with more frequent oral health-promoting activities [ 30 ]. Mofidi and colleagues [ 31 ] noted challenges in EHS staff and parent communication around oral health, and confusion around oral health standards. Head Start and EHS health program managers report oral health promotion is a common health service component, and 75–90% of HVs taught proper toothbrushing technique to families [ 32 ]. Program managers reported basic hygiene instruction was provided to all families, but more oral health trainings and services were provided if a program viewed ECC as a significant problem [ 32 ]. Other research has shown that brief trainings (one-time, three-hour session) for EHS HVs can effectively significantly improve HVs’ oral health knowledge [ 33 ], though it is not clear how that translates to practice. While EHS program characteristics have been studied, less is known about the specific contexts for children participating in EHS HV programs and the myriad factors that influence their hygiene behaviors and ECC risk.

The Children’s Partnership recently called for expanded support for oral health components promotion in HV programs serving young children, including in EHS [ 34 ]. EHS performance standards require family engagement in the health service components, including oral health [ 35 ]. A major EHS home-based program benefit is the HVs’ ability to connect directly with families in their homes. While HVs can offer health information, instruction, and support, families still have to make the behavioral changes. Thus, finding additional ways to motivate and encourage sustained behavior change in these families are urgently needed.

This study took place at an EHS program that offered home-based services located at a multi-site Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Los Angeles, California. As of 2017, this site provides comprehensive medical care to 26,000 children and adults. Here, we focus on families in the EHS HV program and examine the multi-level influences on parents’ hygiene behaviors for their children. The aim of this study was to better understand how and where to intervene and support optimal oral hygiene practices, defined as twice daily toothbrushing with an age-appropriate amount of fluoridated toothpaste, using a qualitative design. This methodology is ideal at the formative phase for exploring a range of factors at different levels. Following the Fisher-Owens and colleagues’ conceptual framework, this paper explores child-, family- and community-level influences on oral hygiene practices for young children participating in an EHS HV program.

Study design

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with parents of children under 4 years old in one EHS in Los Angeles, CA. This study investigated child-, family-, and community-level influences on the EHS child’s oral hygiene practices. The in-depth interviews were part of formative research conducted to inform the design of an intervention aimed at improving parental behaviors for oral hygiene for their young children. The academic institution’s Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Participant recruitment

Fourteen EHS HVs verbally advertised the study and disseminated a project flyer to each family. Using this non-probabilistic purposive sampling approach, 122 families returned a form to their HV authorizing the research staff to contact them. Two trained research assistants (RAs) contacted each parent and screened them for eligibility; criteria were: parent must be child’s primary caregiver; must be at least 6 months old but less than 4 years old (if more than one child was in this age range, the oldest child was eligible); and their child must be enrolled in or waitlisted for the EHS HV program.

Of the 122 families interested in participating, 74 caregivers (all of whom were mothers), gave verbal consent, and completed a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) including socio-demographic questions (61% response rate). At the end of the CATI, respondents were then invited to participate in an in-person interview. Of the 42 expressing interest, in-person interviews were conducted with a convenience sample on a rolling basis between November 2016 and February 2017 until the predetermined 25 interviews was reached to gain adequate data saturation and breadth and depth of input on desired topics.

A preliminary semi-structured interview guide was initially developed in English, translated to Spanish by a professional translator, and back-translated to English to ensure accuracy. The guide was iteratively pre-tested, with both English- and Spanish-speakers, to assess length, respondent comprehension of question phrasing and probes, relevance, and question flow. The final interview guide (Table 1 ) changes were translated into Spanish by one bilingual staff member, and reviewed independently by two other bilingual staff. Many topics were included to understand the family composition, engagement with EHS staff and other EHS families, parents’ oral health knowledge and practices for themselves and the EHS child, the child’s daily toothbrushing routines, brushing challenges and strategies, and preferences about different incentives. Two trained RAs conducted in-person interviews ( n  = 21 in Spanish, n  = 4 in English) in a private room in the FQHC. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. Both RAs facilitated each interview: the bilingual English/Spanish female RA led the questioning for all interviews, while the other RA prepared all study materials, audio-recorded the interview, took field notes, and if necessary, engaged with the participants’ child(ren) to reduce interview distractions. Interviews lasted approximately 1 h (mean = 51 min, range: 27–84 min), including an option for a short refreshment break. Participants received a $40 grocery store gift card as compensation for their time. An experienced translation service translated audio recordings to English if necessary, and transcribed the recordings.

Select questions from semi-structured interview guide

See Additional file 1 for Spanish version

Data analysis

Qualitative analysis followed transcription and translation of the interviews. We used Dedoose (SocioCultural Research Consultants, Manhattan Beach, CA, USA) mixed methods software for data management and to conduct all analysis of textual data. One RA with qualitative training and experience using Dedoose iteratively reviewed all transcriptions for interview context and recorded analytic memos to note and further discuss impressions and ideas relating to the conceptual framework with the research team in the early data interpretation stage. Codebook development was based on recorded notes from iterative transcription reviews and the interview guide. Codes were attached to excerpts using general thematic analysis, grouped into preliminary themes, and discussed with the research team to reach theme consensus. Our thematic analysis was guided by the Fisher-Owens and colleagues’ conceptual framework [ 4 ], selected because it is a well-established multi-level model that captures many oral health determinants. A team member with experience and expertise in qualitative research methods and oral health also reviewed all transcripts, codes, and final thematic interpretation. Exemplary quotes were extracted to illustrate key themes.

Demographic data from telephone surveys were descriptively summarized in Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Three phone surveys which were incomplete due to phones disconnecting or participants declining to answer, were excluded from the sociodemographic analyses ( n  = 22).

This study took place at a predominantly (86%) home-based EHS program (11% family child care and 3% prenatal women services). Sociodemographic characteristics of in-depth interview participants were summarized in Table  2 . Almost two-thirds (64%) of mothers were between ages 30–39; nearly all (91%) were born outside the US. About one-third (36%) completed high school, 41% declined to report family annual income (though they met EHS eligibility income levels), while 36% had four people living in their household and 52% had five or more. About half (54%) of mothers reported that their oldest child in EHS was 24 to 35 months years old. One child was waitlisted for the EHS HV program at the time of interview; the remainder were currently enrolled. Two children had Down’s Syndrome.

Participant characteristics ( N  = 22) a

a 3 surveys were missing

b Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

c Collected via transcriptions

d Collected via telephone surveys

Mothers’ reports of their EHS children’s oral hygiene routines were presented, as well as factors that affected those behavioral routines. The seven themes identified were presented, organized by level of influence (child-, family-, and community-levels), supported by select illustrative quotes. Themes are summarized in Table  3 .

Summary of themes identified that influence children’s oral hygiene behaviors, by level, from Fisher-Owens et al. framework

Children’s oral hygiene routines

Mothers’ narratives included descriptions of their children’s oral health practices. Many mothers shared that they started cleaning their children’s mouths and teeth before they turned one, mainly using a finger toothbrush or cloth, then switched to brushing around age one. Most mothers indicated that they were usually the main person who brushed the child’s teeth, and that the child’s oral hygiene routine commonly included brushing in the morning and before bed at night (i.e., twice per day). Several talked about an additional brushing episode after every meal when at home if possible, and particularly preferred brushing in the afternoon. Some delayed brushing times to later in the mornings on weekends, when activities were less routine.

Interviewer: Why is the afternoon better for you? Participant: It’s because everyone’s home. It’s when everybody has already eaten and I can take the time to check those things. -Mother of less than 1 year old child I feel like the weekdays are easier because we’re following a routine. We’re thinking, “Ok, we have to brush our teeth, read, and go to sleep.” On the weekends, we’re more relaxed. My brother or a cousin will come to visit or we’d go to a party somewhere. There’s less control on the weekends. – Mother of less than 3 year old child

Mothers also discussed deviations from their child’s regular hygiene routine. A few mothers mentioned child sickness to be a brushing barrier because children would not be interested in doing anything (i.e., brushing, eating, sleeping) following their usual routines.

It’s only when she’s sick. That’s when she doesn’t want to brush her teeth. She doesn’t want anything. Even just opening her mouth when she’s sick becomes very difficult. She doesn’t want to eat or sleep. She doesn’t want to brush her teeth. She doesn’t want anything when she’s sick. - Mother of 2 year old child

Brushing was also more problematic for mothers when children were exhausted and/or asleep, and oftentimes would be skipped under these circumstances. Mothers did not want to wake their sleeping children to brush.

When you suddenly go out or you just have to go out, the time to do it [opportunity to brush] passes because he’s already asleep and he won’t get up until the next day. - Mother of 2 year old child

Child-level influences

Mothers identified child-level influences on hygiene routines related to the child’s stage of development and overall level of cooperation. Most mothers indicated that brushing was often a challenge due to their child’s resistance and increasing sense of independence.

Stage of development

Several mothers mentioned the child’s stage of development and their growing desire for independence as a barrier to brushing. Child resistance was another major brushing barrier identified by many mothers. Older children were more verbal, while younger children would throw tantrums and many would keep their mouths shut.

He has episodes of when he doesn’t get it his way; it’s either his way or the highway. An example would be maybe a couple of days ago he was like," No!" I told him," [NAME] , I’m going to wash your teeth." He goes," No! I want to do it," and I go," No, I want to do it." I got persistent with him the same way he got persistent with me so he was just like," Fine! No!" and he walked right out of the room. - Mother of 2 year old child

Family-level influences

Family-level influences on young children’s oral hygiene behaviors included the role of family members and the presence of role models for brushing, the mother’s oral health-related beliefs and own hygiene practices, and the mother’s coping skills for overcoming barriers to brushing her child’s teeth.

Mother’s role

Mothers expressed that they were primarily responsible for their child’s oral hygiene, and many noted that they felt they were important positive role models for their young children’s oral hygiene. Mothers would often model brushing their own teeth.

Watching us because if I go to the restroom, then he goes to the restroom. If I go to the kitchen, then he goes to the kitchen. Every time I go brush my teeth, he’s there asking for my toothbrush. I say, “It’s not your turn! Let me do mine!” He watch[es] me and he opens his mouth. He’s making noises and that’s what he learned. – Mother of 1 year old child

Family role models

A few mothers discussed how their older children’s brushing experiences helped to shape their younger children’s oral hygiene routine. Older children served as positive role models and would help reinforce brushing as a habit for their younger siblings.

I think yeah the habits that have been influenced is that with her [older sibling] - she has been really good in listening to directions. She’s also very organized so she follows, like," Okay, the next thing we have to do is brush our teeth." So I think the habits I have done with her, the good habits and the discipline I think have helped him [focal child]. He sees so he is like" Oh she is going to go brush her teeth, so now I have to go." So I think that has really helped me in the way that I don’t really have to tell him," Oh, go brush your teeth." Like he knows," Oh I’ll follow my sister." Or, um, he’ll learn faster from seeing her. – Mother of 2 year old child

Poor dental experiences with older children also motivated mothers to improve dental hygiene regimens for younger siblings, increased maternal awareness about oral health more generally, prompted them to start oral hygiene routines at earlier ages with the younger siblings.

For instance, with the big one [older sibling] it happened to me that I didn’t brush her teeth with a toothbrush, but with a little cloth when she had a few teeth. For me, it wasn’t important to brush her teeth, because I thought, ‘She’s still little’ and I would only do it with the little cloth every day. And it was hard for me to find the time to brush her teeth, until I saw the little black spots, like the early stages of cavities. And I thought, ‘Oh.’ So I am more aware of this one, because I know this can happen. – Mother of less than 1 year old child

A few mothers mentioned their husbands were barriers to maintaining their child’s daily toothbrushing because of how relaxed they were about it.

Participant: He [child] has like a routine with me. That’s the word that I was looking for. With his dad he’s more laidback. With his dad he’ll do whatever he wants. I keep him more on a schedule and on a routine with me. Interviewer: How do you feel about that? Participant : I feel that his dad has to be on the same page as me because I feel like – he knows it and then they get used to it because he knows when his dad is around and I’m home too he knows if he wants to do whatever he wants. He’ll start crying and he’ll go to his dad because he knows his dad is like," Just do whatever you want. I’ll watch you." – Mother of 1 year old child In the mornings daddy has that responsibility. Daddy is a bit more laid back… He is more like, how do I say it. For him he’s more like, “They’re just kids. They’ll eventually learn. If we didn’t do it this morning, it’s okay, we’ll get tomorrow, you know? Or we’ll do it later.” – Mother of 2 year old child

Not all fathers were relaxed, however, and some mothers indicated that fathers played a consistent role and was in charge of brushing the child’s teeth as part of their normal daily routine.

Knowledge of child oral health

Caries prevention was a primary motivating factor for brushing young children’s teeth. Mothers in the EHS HV program were quite knowledgeable about ECC risk factors, including the role of bacteria and sugar consumption. Many mothers believed morning bad breath resulted from the accumulation of bacteria from the previous night’s sleep and preferred their children to start each day with a clean mouth. Many described the role of bacteria and microbes and plaque specifically, including bacteria transmission in saliva, as part of the caries development process.

[explaining why she brushes child’s teeth twice per day] Well, because at the beginning the pediatrician told me, as did the dentist, that when she wakes up she has all the microbes that her saliva produces throughout the night. And at night, after she has her last thing to eat, I have to do it and I shouldn’t give her anything. They said even if she drinks milk, some of it will be left in her teeth. That’s why they say that at night after I brush my teeth I shouldn’t give her anything at all, except for water if she wants. So that nothing stays there, like milk. –Mother of less than 2 year old child

Mothers were motivated to brush their children’s teeth at night because they had eaten food all day and wanted their children to go to sleep with a clean mouth. Mothers understood that consuming excess candy and sugary beverages can cause cavities. They also said that they maintained their children’s oral health by limiting their sugar intake, though some mothers struggled with managing this behavior.

Well, we try to keep them healthy by making sure that she doesn’t eat too much candy. In the evenings she doesn’t drink juice nor eat any food after she brushes her teeth. We don’t give her anything except for milk, if at all. – Mother of 1 year old child They [children] don’t drink juice and only with water when they want to. I don’t give them many sweets because I know that causes cavities. They don’t drink sodas. I try to give them the healthiest [foods] that I can. – Mother, child age unavailable

Attitudes about child’s oral health

For many mothers, their main concerns for their child’s oral health were related to preventing cavities and poor oral health. A few mothers discussed that their child’s oral health was important because oral health was connected to overall health, and that poor oral health could lead to future general health problems.

Honestly, when my daughter had a few caries [sic] , and I was coming every month so they could check on her, I was very concerned. I thought, “She’s so little, and I don’t want her to suffer with caries.” I always did what they told me to. – Mother of 2 year old child Participant: Also her own [overall] health. If her dental health is fine, then everything else is going to be ok. If your dental health is bad, she can get cavities which can bring her serious health problems. Interviewer: Oh, ok. Why do you think that there is this connection? Participant: This connection? Interviewer: Between your general and oral health. Participant: Oh, ok. I think so because that’s what doctors say, right? If you have bad dental health, it can bring infections and it can- Everything is connected. It’s one body, isn’t it? – Mother of 1 year old child (with Down’s Syndrome)

These attitudes about the importance of oral health motivated regular oral hygiene behaviors for their young children.

Mother’s expectations for when her child can brush his/her own teeth was another important belief that influenced child oral health hygiene practices. Mothers varied widely in their beliefs about the appropriate age of independent brushing among children. Most parents expected children to brush independently at 5 years old, but some mothers didn’t know there was any recommended age or the “right” age, and answers ranged from one to 5 years of age.

Coping skills/strategies

Mothers discussed multiple strategies and distraction techniques to complete brushing their children’s teeth. Some mothers engaged their children during morning toothbrushing through storytelling. Storytelling was an effective strategy for some because it distracted the child, allowing the parent to carry on with the brushing, and kept the child’s attention after brushing. Storytelling involved using both positive and negative frames to describe planned activities or consequences of not maintaining good hygiene habits.

Well, one day she didn’t want to [brush teeth] . At the beginning, she didn’t want to because the toothpaste was different. She said, “It stings, it stings.” She didn’t want to so I told her, “Do you know what we’re going to do tomorrow?” So I said this or that and then I noticed that she stayed still. I did it the next day and realized that it was working. That’s why I do it. – Mother of 2 year old child I tell her a story or I play a song [on mother’s phone] for her, something like that. But in the mornings when we’re rushing, I try to tell her something, “Oh my, did you know that this or that happened to such and such girl. She didn’t take care of her teeth so now she’s in pain.” And she’s just like, “Ahh. And did she bleed?” I said, “No, she didn’t bleed but she is in pain and she’s going to have to go to the dentist because she doesn’t know what’s wrong.” And even after we finish, she still wants me to continue telling her about it! But I do try to come up with something. – Mother of 3 year old child

In addition, mothers engaged their child by singing and allowing their child to watch videos while brushing. Several mothers showed their child photos on their phone or turned on the television. Some showed dolls’ teeth as an example of good oral health vis-à-vis the aesthetic of white beautiful teeth, which was contrasted against poor oral health hygiene outcomes that could result in teeth that look “yellow” or “ugly.” One mother mentioned to her daughter that she planned to brush her daughter’s teeth first so that her daughter could then brush her doll’s teeth.

He [target child’ sibling] saw a video that it’s good to sing when you’re, not really sing, but like a song when you brushing your teeth. That’s a video that we saw for kids so they don’t get bored to do it for like 3 min. -Mother of 1-year-old child Well, sometimes I tell her that- I use her dolls and I tell her, “ Look, your dolls have very beautiful teeth,” I say to her, “That’s because your dolls brush their teeth and if you don’t brush [your teeth], your teeth are going to look very ugly, they’ll get all yellow and will look bad.” She says, “Mommy, I don’t want that. I don’t want my teeth to look ugly.” “Well, you have to brush them” I say to her. And then she goes to the bathroom and I tell her, “Let’s go brush your teeth.” - Mother of 2-year-old child

Nearly all mothers described these strategies as tools for distracting their children long enough for them to brush their teeth. Some mothers, however, lacked effective solutions to overcome brushing barriers, leading to abandoning brushing and waiting until the child was cooperative to try brushing again.

Community-level influences

At the community-level, potential influences were identified related to community oral health environment and social environment within the context of the EHS HV program, and health system characteristics. Additionally, culture plays a role at the community-level of influence as well as at the individual-level. Cultural beliefs, shared in communities, can influence health beliefs and practices.

Community oral health environment

A few mothers described how EHS HV provided oral hygiene demonstrations during the home visit, promoting good oral health in the home with the child and family.

They [children] didn’t want to brush their teeth, but a worker [Home Visitor] , she visited us often, she brought a dinosaur with big teeth and a big toothbrush. She put shaving gel instead of toothpaste on the toothbrush so she showed them, ‘Oh, the dinosaur washes their teeth.’ She colored in the dinosaur’s teeth with a crayon, ‘You see that’s the food and you get dirty on the teeth so we’re going to wash it off.’ So something like that and they go, ‘Oh the dinosaur is washing their teeth so I got to wash my teeth.’ – Mother of 2 year old

Mothers noted there were opportunities to interact with other EHS families in the HV program, and for EHS HVs to provide health and child development information. Mothers mentioned mostly seeing other EHS parents and children at playgroup sessions and parent meetings, though many did not interact regularly with other EHS families otherwise. HVs organized playgroups with educational activities for parents and children on a regular basis (weekly or twice per month), and as an opportunity for parents to socialize with other parents.

The monthly parent committee meetings offered information about various topics, such as immigration, housing, basic human rights, and childcare, though those were less well attended than the playgroups.

Sometimes, when you go to the [parent committee] meetings that they do they occasionally provide help or assistance. For instance, now, with immigration, people come to talk about our rights or there are people who come to talk about leasing controls. Also, there are people who come to talk to us about children, like how to detect when they are suffering from autism. So there are different classes that they give us so that we can learn things that one doesn’t know. – Mother of less than 1 year old child

Many mothers discussed sharing concerns about their child and sought advice from other mothers at playgroups or at parent meetings, and from EHS home visitors. No mothers mentioned discussing oral health or oral hygiene information in these groups, but did discuss other child health concerns and developmental milestones. Some identified that the HV provided the same health information and recommendations as their healthcare providers, suggesting that HVs were seen as providing reliable and provided some helpful child health education and support.

A few mothers noted that oral hygiene was specifically discussed as part of the EHS playgroup routine. A couple mothers indicated that playgroups incorporated brushing and cleaning the children’s mouth after snack as part of the routine. The playgroup offered a supportive environment outside the home as a positive influence on promoting regular oral hygiene practice.

Participant: Usually we’ll go to – the little playgroup usually happens on [location] ? We’ll get there and the kids will play and read. They’ll have their little snack and then after the snack they’ll go and play again. They’ll sing a song to them and that’ll be it. Interviewer: Wow. That’s a lot of activities. Participant: Yeah. Interviewer: So if the kids are playing -- Participant: Oh! And they brush their teeth too there. They actually have you, after their snack, they actually have you brush your teeth. Interviewer: Is it a group activity? Participant: Yeah. It’s like the home – I think it’s all of the home visitors and all of their childrens [sic] . – Mother of 1 year old child

Social environment

Some mothers who mentioned brushing occurring in EHS playgroups indicated that their children were still not willing to have their teeth brushed or cleaned, despite observing other children having their teeth brushed. In a context where young children are socializing, such as in the playgroup, there is the opportunity to observe norms among peers.

Participant: Since we started going to the playgroup, even when she [child name] looked at other kids doing it, she wouldn’t. They gave us gauze to clean her teeth, but she wouldn’t let me. She didn’t want to and she didn’t want to. Interviewer: Not even at the group? Participant: No, not even at the group. I used to tell her, “Look at the children. They are all brushing their teeth.” No. She would just look at them like, “What’s wrong with this?” And she gets upset. – Mother of less than 2 year old child

Health care system characteristics

Most mothers discussed their own experiences with the dental care system rather than their child’s experiences with a dentist when access to dental care was mentioned. However, as noted earlier, many mothers were highly knowledgeable about oral health, and several indicated learning from healthcare providers (most frequently pediatricians and dentists). There were examples shared of how the health care and dental care system influenced children’s oral hygiene practices.

Because what they [dental staff] have explained to us at the dentist is that if you have cavities, you can pass those cavities to the other children. – Mother of almost 2 year old

This study contributes to the literature through the qualitative exploration of multiple levels of influence on young children’s oral hygiene practices. Mothers’ identified several child-, family- and community-level influences, which shed light on both potential positive and negative influences on the target behavior. Study results provide insight into the motivations behind child oral hygiene and directions for interventions that EHS HVs could facilitate.

The child’s developmental stage was perceived as a barrier to brushing, though this was not universally expressed in this sample. Some (mostly older) children were compliant and mothers had no challenges with brushing their children’s teeth daily. The normal hygiene routines for nearly all study children appeared optimal overall, with twice-daily brushing reported as happening most of the time. However, these perceptions could be affected by social desirability biases. Children are unique individuals, often with distinct personality characteristics already formed at young ages. While there is mixed evidence about whether or not different child temperaments may be associated with ECC or ECC risk factors [ 36 , 37 ], child age and temperament may be an important child-level characteristic worth further exploration. Child temperament was not examined in this study, but could have contributed to mothers’ perceptions about what is normal behavior for their child. Child age is related to developmental stage, and young children do also become more independent over time.

Most factors influencing child oral hygiene routines operated at the family-level, predominantly driven by mothers [ 38 ]. Many families in two caregiver households split brushing responsibilities, but narratives about the father’s role and influence varied. In several instances, fathers were identified as generally less involved in their child’s oral hygiene routines, and often less supportive of maintaining the home routine. Similar findings have been documented in Latino families with young children in other studies [ 14 , 39 ]. When both parents do not uphold and reinforce the child’s routine, it has a negative influence on the child’s hygiene behavior [ 13 ]. Our results also suggested that young children learned from their mothers and older siblings who modeled and helped with brushing, suggesting that other family members can influence hygiene routines.

Fathers’ involvement in their child’s brushing routines may mitigate child resistance through both parents working together to gain the child’s cooperation, and the child getting consistent messages about oral hygiene and health as a priority from their parents. Several narratives discussed different parenting styles and approaches to hygiene between mothers and fathers. In this study, information was not available about overall family functioning, though family structure was available. Poorer family functioning (for example, poor communication is one dimension of poorer family functioning) and certain parenting styles (authoritarian and permissive) have been associated with worse oral hygiene habits and higher caries experience in young children [ 40 – 43 ]. HVs are uniquely positioned to work closely with families, learn about parenting styles, families’ home routines, and what may work better for each family. Home visitors that can elicit higher parental engagement during visits has been positively associated with better outcomes in other EHS home-based programs [ 44 ], although information was not available in this study about how much the EHS HV specifically interacted with or provided oral health information to families.

EHS HV have high potential to become more effective agents for promoting oral health efforts with their families. While oral health is part of the EHS HV curriculum, there are some reports that oral health activities are not always optimally implemented or attended by families [ 30 , 45 ]. In a Wisconsin EHS program, additional brief oral health training for HVs that included motivational interviewing (MI) and role playing techniques improved their knowledge and efficacy in this area [ 33 ]. However, MI has shown mixed results in preventing caries in young children [ 7 ] and adolescents [ 46 ].

Other important elements for motivating and supporting behavior change include knowledge, skill, and strategies for overcoming challenges. Mothers in this study were familiar with ECC, understood the risk factors and etiology, and spoke knowledgeably about it, often using correct terminology including “caries,” “bacteria,” and “microbes.” Some mothers did use more common terms like “cavities,” but overall, most were describing the problems and disease process in depth, and identified disease prevention as a motivation for regular hygiene. This contrasts other reports that identify more cosmetic reasons motivating parents to teach and perform oral hygiene with young children [ 47 ] and limited ECC knowledge among Latino parents [ 48 , 49 ]. While parental ECC risk factor knowledge is often assessed, it sometimes excludes mothers’ understanding of the role of bacteria. This suggests that ensuring parental awareness of the ECC disease process is critical knowledge and a salient motivator for good oral hygiene practices. Supportive effects could be further enhanced by ensuring information delivery to the whole family. In an EHS intervention, family-focused interventions were more effective than standard didactic video for anticipatory guidance oral health [ 50 ]. EHS HVs are well-positioned to potentially reach the whole family and directly observe facilitating or impeding factors for optimal oral hygiene.

EHS HVs can offer tailored support to parents so they can build the skills and confidence in their ability to brush their children’s teeth correctly until the child is at least 8 years old, which AAPD recommends as the age for independent toothbrushing [ 10 ]. While caries prevention was noted to be a primary motivator for frequent hygiene practices, and most mothers reported regularly brushing their children’s teeth, there was a striking knowledge gap, and mothers were not sure when children should be able to brush their own teeth without parental help. This is a notable point for educational intervention that EHS HVs could emphasize. Hoeft and colleagues [ 51 ] reported that Latino parents initiated toothbrushing close to age 2 (mean ± standard deviation: 1.8 ± 0.8 years), and believed children could brush independently by about age 3 (3.1 ± 1.2 years). Maternal acculturation level may also play a role in health beliefs and behaviors, and this study sample was predominantly Spanish-speaking mothers. Language is not the only acculturation measure, but there have been differences in the oral health-related knowledge and oral health status of Latino children of Spanish-speaking versus English-speaking mothers, with higher knowledge and better outcomes among children of English-speaking mothers [ 52 ]. EHS HV can work with families at home, and reinforce accurate knowledge and oral health-promoting practices. Indeed, results of this study informed a behavioral intervention, which emphasized the mothers’ high knowledge and positive attitudes, by addressing knowledge gaps, reinforcing correct knowledge and attitudes that motivated behavior.

Notably many mothers had effective strategies to engage their children on brushing their teeth regularly—experiences that could be shared with other families through the EHS HV program parent groups and playgroups. Enhancing coping skills of parents who encounter resistance from their young children for brushing could be another intervention opportunity to support parents in successfully brushing young children’s teeth and establish oral hygiene routines and practices. Although mothers in this study did not discuss psychosocial factors like perceived confidence in their ability to brush their child’s teeth well, self-efficacy is a modifiable perception that can be enhanced to improve behavioral routines. Indeed, parents of preschool-aged children with higher brushing efficacy brushed their children’s teeth more frequently [ 53 ]. Higher oral health knowledge is also positively associated with self-efficacy and oral health outcomes among young Latino children [ 54 ]. Thus, hands-on instruction, demonstrations, practice, and feedback can enhance skills and mothers’ confidence and ability to perform proper oral hygiene for their young children. Building children’s oral hygiene practices into their bedtime routine is recommended as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Brush-Book-Bed program [ 55 ]. Additionally, other potentially influential family-level psychosocial factors not captured in this study may be important factors in motivating behavior change. For example, in another study of Latino mothers of preschool-aged children, parenting stress was a barrier to children’s oral hygiene [ 14 ].

Mothers discussed their own dental care experiences, but were not asked directly about, and did not share much information related to, their young children’s dental utilization. Dental providers possibly could influence parents and provide proper hygiene instruction and support for preschoolers at their first dental visits along with anticipatory guidance [ 56 ], yet this potential source of information and influence did not come up in interviews, perhaps due in part to the questions emphasizing oral hygiene behaviors. This particular EHS program was co-located with a FQHC, so dental services may have been more accessible for study participants. It is noteworthy that a few mothers indicated that dental providers did influence knowledge about ECC, and there is potential for dentists to play a larger role in establishing an ideal oral hygiene routine for young children. The health care system is an important community-level influence for oral health promotion in earliest childhood.

Our study findings also suggest that community-level influences on child behavior matter, and there are unique opportunities within the EHS HV program and ways they bring families together and interact with them. Some mothers noted that young children saw peers get their teeth brushed as part of the normal, expected routine after snacking at the EHS playgroups—an opportunity that parents and HVs can use foster positive peer influences. There may also be opportunities to discuss oral health at parent groups and in relation to other child development milestones, like normal everyday routines, such as washing the children’s hands or changing their diapers, or capitalize in other ways on the EHS HV program structure. Thus, EHS HVs can potentially further amplify the effects of their oral health education at the playgroups and family activities. In general, relatively little research has specifically explored the community-level influences on young children’s oral health. Other qualitative studies of young children’s parents show that those without external social support were less likely to brush their preschool-aged children’s teeth twice daily [ 57 ] and that parents’ perceptions about child brushing norms were defined relative to how often other parents brushed their children’s teeth [ 47 ]. Social influences on children’s hygiene behavior should be studied further.

In sum, child-, family- and community-level factors are important to consider to inform developing tailored interventions and relevant oral health preventive care programs for families in EHS HV programs. The conceptual framework by Fisher-Owens and colleagues [ 4 ] was a useful tool for organizing and examining complex and interconnected levels of influence on child oral hygiene behavior, and identifying specific directions for oral hygiene promotion efforts. Several positive influences and opportunities for intervention were noted. Mothers’ high oral-health related knowledge and motivation to brush their child’s teeth were emphasized, and these results informed targeting regular morning and evening toothbrushing.

This study’s strengths and limitations should be considered when interpreting results. This study was conducted with a convenience sample of predominantly foreign-born, Spanish-speaking mothers recruited from one EHS site, which may affect generalizability. Recruitment and scheduling continued until the target sample size ( N  = 25) was enrolled, which could have resulted in some respondent bias. There may have also been some effort justification bias, as participants received an incentive. Many mothers who were initially interested provided minimal availability, predicted that their children would be disruptive during the interview or faced transportation barriers, and opted not to participate. Mothers’ descriptions of their children’s hygiene behaviors could have been subject to social desirability or recall biases. The semi-structured interview approach was appropriate and allowed mothers to openly share their perspectives and explain how different factors affect their child’s oral hygiene practices. However, fathers, other caregivers, and EHS HV perspectives were not captured here, and should be explored in future research. Their perspectives would contribute to a more complete understanding of the EHS HV program context and help inform a future behavioral intervention.

Multiple factors at child-, family- and community-levels influence young children’s oral health and their oral hygiene practices. EHS HV are well positioned to assess needs and provide support, education, and resources to improve parental toothbrushing techniques and help parents overcome barriers and challenges to promote oral health in earliest childhood.

Additional file

Select questions from semi-structured interview guide (Spanish). (DOCX 36 kb)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the FQHC staff for recruiting parents and offering space for semi-structured interviews. We also extend our gratitude to the parent participants for sharing their rich narratives. We thank the BEECON study staff.

Abbreviations

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Early Childhood Caries

Early Head Start

Federally Qualified Health Centers

Home visitor

Motivational interviewing

Research assistant

Authors’ contributions

TLF led writing the manuscript, reviewed all transcripts, and assisted with qualitative data analyses. MJC participated in data collection, reviewed all transcripts, led qualitative data analysis and coding, and drafted methods and results sections. JL and JG contributed to manuscript development, wrote sections of the introduction, and edited drafts. SG and FRG contributed to study design and edited drafts of the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final version being submitted.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute Of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number UH2DE025514. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIDCR, the NIH, or the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the cooperative agreement mechanism, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients’ study design activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; the funder did not participate in data collection, analysis or interpretation, or manuscript writing.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the data protections for personal identifying information outlined in the IRB protocol for this study, but are available from the study PIs (SG and FRG) on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The University of California, San Francisco Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board (IRB), Mount Zion Panel is the Reviewing IRB on protocol #16–18925 and the University of California, Los Angeles IRB is the relying IRB. All parent interview participants provided written, voluntary informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Stuart A. Gansky and Francisco Ramos-Gomez are joint last authors.

Contributor Information

Tracy L. Finlayson, Phone: 619-594-0559, Email: [email protected]

MarkJason Cabudol, Email: [email protected].

Jenny X. Liu, Email: [email protected]

Jeremiah R. Garza, Email: [email protected]

Stuart A. Gansky, Email: [email protected]

Francisco Ramos-Gomez, Email: [email protected].

• 1. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services . Oral health in America: a report of the surgeon general - executive summary. 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Dye BA, Hsu K-LC, Afful J. Prevalence and measurement of dental caries in young children. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(3):200–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Henshaw MM, Garcia R, Weintraub JA. Oral health disparities across the life span. Dent Clin N Am. 2018;62(2):177–193. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2017.12.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs, Definition of Early Childhood Caries (ECC). 2008. https://www.aapd.org/assets/1/7/P_ECCClassifications.pdf . Accessed 12 June 2019.
• 5. Fisher-Owens SA, Gansky SA, Platt LJ, Weintraub JA, Soobader M-J, Bramlett MD, et al. Influences on children’s oral health: a conceptual model. Pediatrics. 2007;120(3):e510–e520. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3084. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Albino J, Tiwari T. Preventing childhood caries: a review of recent behavioral research. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):35–42. doi: 10.1177/0022034515609034. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Henshaw MM, Borrelli B, Gregorich SE, Heaton B, Tooley EM, Santo W, et al. Randomized trial of motivational interviewing to prevent early childhood caries in public housing. JDR Clin Transl Res. 2018;3(4):353–365. doi: 10.1177/2380084418794377. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Franzman MR, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Broffitt B. Tooth-brushing and dentifrice use among children ages 6 to 60 months. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26(1):87–92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Hooley M, Skouteris H, Boganin C, Satur J, Kilpatrick N. Parental influence and the development of dental caries in children aged 0–6 years: a systematic review of the literature. J Dent. 2012;40(11):873–885. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.013. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Leong PM, Gussy MG, Barrow SY, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Waters E. A systematic review of risk factors during first year of life for early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;23(4):235–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01260.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee Guideline on infant oral health care, 2014. Ref Manual Clin Pract Guidel. 2016;37(6):146–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Hoeft KS, Barker JC, Masterson EE. Maternal beliefs and motivations for first dental visit by low-income Mexican-American children in California. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33(5):392–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• 13. Duijster D, de Jong-Lenters M, Verrips E, van Loveren C. Establishing oral health promoting behaviours in children – parents’ views on barriers, facilitators and professional support: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:157. doi: 10.1186/s12903-015-0145-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Finlayson TL, Beltran NY, Becerra K. Psychosocial factors and oral health practices of preschool-aged children: a qualitative study with Hispanic mothers. Ethn Health. 2017;11:1–19. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2017.1315366. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Harris R, Nicoll AD, Adair PM, Pine CM. Risk factors for dental caries in young children: a systematic review of the literature. Comm Dent Health. 2004;21(1 Suppl):71–85. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Grindefjord M, Dahllof G, Modeer T. Caries development in children from 2.5 to 3.5 years of age: a longitudinal study. Caries Res. 1995;29:449–454. doi: 10.1159/000262113. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Greenwell A, Johnsen D, DiSantis T, Gerstenmaier J, Limbert N. Longitudinal evaluation of caries patterns from the primary to the mixed dentition. Pediatr Dent. 1990;12:278–282. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Castilho ARF, Mialhe FL, Barbosa TS, Puppin-Rontani RM. Influence of family environment on children's oral health: a systematic review. J Pediatr. 2013;89(2):116–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2013.03.014. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Chaudry A, Pedroza JM, Sandstrom H, Danziger A, Grosz M, Scott M, et al. Child care choices of low-income working families. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center. Washington DC. US. Department of Health and Human Services. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/ . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 21. Head Start Program Performance Standards https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/ehs-infant-toddler-hspps-chart.pdf . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 22. Kranz AM, Rozier RG. Oral health content of early education and child care regulations and standards. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71(2):81–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00204.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Early Head Start Programs. Program Information Report, Head Start. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2017-2018-hs-pir-form.pdf . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 24. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs, Definition of Dental Home. 2018. https://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/D_DentalHome.pdf . Accessed 12 June 2019.
• 25. US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Early Head Start Programs. https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/programs/article/early-head-start-programs . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 26. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Caring for our children. 3.1.5.3: Oral Health Education. http://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/3.1.5.3 . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 27. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education, 3.1.5.1: Routine oral hygiene routines. http://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/3.1.5.1 . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 28. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. 3.1.5.2: Toothbrushes and toothpaste. http://nrckids.org/CFOC/Database/3.1.5.2 . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 29. Kranz AM, Rozier RG, Zeldin LP, Preisser JS. Oral health activities of early head start and migrant and seasonal head start programs. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012;23(3):1205–1221. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0090. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Kranz AM, Rozier RG, Zeldin LP, Preisser JS. Oral health activities of early head start teachers directed toward children and parents. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71(2):161–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00245.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Mofidi M, Zeldin LP, Rozier RG. Oral health of early head start children: a qualitative study of staff, parents, and pregnant women. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):245–251. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.133827. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Martin LT, Karoly LA. Addressing oral health in head start: insights from the head start health manager descriptive study, OPRE report 2016–84. Washington, DC: Administration on Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
• 33. Glatt K, Okunseri C, Flanagan D, Simpson P, Cao Y, Willis E. Evaluation of an oral health education session for early head start home visitors. J Public Health Dent. 2016;76(3):167–170. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12140. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Mariani M, Velazquez L, Kattlove J. Healthy mouth, healthy start: Improving oral health for young children and families through early childhood home visiting. Los Angeles: The Children's Partnership; 2016. https://childrenspartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Healthy-Mouth-Healthy-Start-Improving-Oral-Health-for-Young-Children-and-Families-Through-Early-Childhood-Home-Visiting_August-2016.pdf . Accessed 24 July 2019.
• 35. Auger A, Karoly LA, Martin LT. Family engagement in the delivery of the health services component in Head Start and Early Head Start, OPRE report 2016–86. Washington, DC: Administration on Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
• 36. Quinonez RB, Keels MA, Vann WF, McIver FT, Heller K, Whitt JK. Early childhood caries: analysis of psychosocial and biological factors in a high-risk population. Caries Res. 2001;35:376–383. doi: 10.1159/000047477. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Spitz AS, Weber-Gasparoni K, Kanellis MJ, Qian F. Child temperament and risk factors for early childhood caries. J Dent Child. 2006;73(2):98–104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Detwiler DJ. Mother knows best: brushing baby teeth. Dent Stud. 1981;60(1):44A–44D. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Swan MA, Barker JC, Hoeft KS. Rural Latino farmworker fathers’ understanding of children's oral hygiene practices. Pediatr Dent. 2010;32(5):400–406. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Duijster D, Verrips GHW, Loveren C. The role of family functioning in childhood dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;42(3):193–205. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12079. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Duijster D, O'Malley L, Elison S, Van Loveren C, Marcenes W, Adair PM, et al. Family relationships as an explanatory variable in childhood dental caries: a systematic review of measures. Caries Res. 2013;47(Suppl. 1):22–39. doi: 10.1159/000351832. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Howenstein J, Kumar A, Casamassimo PS, McTigue D, Coury D, Yin H. Correlating parenting styles with child behavior and caries. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(1):59–64. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Kitsaras G, Goodwin M, Allan J, Kelly MP, Pretty IA. Bedtime routines child wellbeing and development. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):386. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5290-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Shanti C. Engaging parents in early head start home-based programs: how do home visitors do this? J Evid Inf Soc Work. 2017;14(5):311–328. doi: 10.1080/23761407.2017.1302858. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. Mathu-Muju K, Lee JY, Zeldin LP, Rozier RG. Opinions of early head start staff about the provision of preventive dental services by primary medical care providers. J Public Health Dent. 2008;68(3):154–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-7325.2007.00052.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Wu L, Gao X, Lo ECM, Ho SMY, McGrath C, Wong MCM. Motivational interviewing to promote oral health in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(3):378–384. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.03.010. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Trubey RJ, Moore SC, Chestnutt IG. Parents’ reasons for brushing or not brushing their child's teeth: a qualitative study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;24(2):104–112. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12034. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. Tiwari T, Rai N, Colmenero E, Gonzalez H, Castro M. A community-based participatory research approach to understand urban Latino parent’s oral health knowledge and beliefs. Int J Dent. 2017;2017:9418305. doi: 10.1155/2017/9418305. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Hoeft KS, Barker JC, Masterson EE. Urban Mexican-American mothers’ beliefs about caries etiology in children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010;38(3):244–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00528.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. Wilson LB, DeBaryshe B, Singh M, Taba S. Evaluating two oral health video interventions with Early Head Start families. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:437830. doi: 10.1155/2013/437830. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Hoeft KS, Masterson EE, Barker JC. Mexican American mothers’ initiation and understanding of home oral hygiene for young children. Pediatr Dent. 2009;31(5):395–404. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. Tiwari T, Mulvahill M, Wilson A, Rai N, Albino J. Association between maternal acculturation and health beliefs related to oral health of Latino children. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0532-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 53. 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(4):272–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00313.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 54. Wilson AR, Mulvahill MJ, Tiwari T. The impact of maternal self-efficacy and oral health beliefs on Early Childhood Caries in Latino children. Front Public Health. 2017;5:228. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00228. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 55. American Academy of Pediatrics. Brush, Book, Bed. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Oral-Health/Pages/Brush-Book-Bed.aspx . Accessed 22 Feb 2019.
• 56. Ramos-Gomez F, Crall JJ, Gansky SA, Slayton RL, Featherstone JDB. Caries risk assessment appropriate for the age 1 visit (infants and toddlers) CDA J. 2007;35(10):687–702. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 57. Huebner CE, Riedy CA. Behavioral determinants of brushing young children’s teeth: implications for anticipatory guidance. Pediatr Dent. 2010;21(1):48–55. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data availability statement.

• View on publisher site
• PDF (664.8 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections