Institute of Medical Psychology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
J Periodontol. 2012 Oct;83(10):1206-12. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.110550. Epub 2012 Jan 20.
This randomized, evaluator-masked, controlled study evaluates the effectiveness of oral in contrast to written instruction of oral hygiene.
Eighty-three students without clinical signs of periodontitis were randomly assigned to either a control group or one of three experimental conditions: 1) written instruction, 2) standardized oral instruction, or 3) individualized oral instruction. Plaque and bleeding indices were assessed to analyze intervention effects on oral health and oral hygiene skills. Measurements took place at baseline and 4 weeks after intervention.
Groups differed significantly with respect to gingival bleeding and were tentatively significant with respect to oral hygiene skills. Participants who had received oral individualized instructions showed the best results.
A gradient of effectiveness of the instruction methods was observed with most favorable results for the individualized instruction.
本随机、评估者盲法、对照研究评估了口腔与书面口腔卫生指导的效果。
83 名无牙周炎临床症状的学生被随机分为对照组或三个实验组之一：1）书面指导，2）标准化口头指导，或 3）个体化口头指导。使用菌斑和出血指数评估干预对口腔健康和口腔卫生技能的影响。测量在基线和干预后 4 周进行。
各组在牙龈出血方面有显著差异，在口腔卫生技能方面有初步的显著差异。接受个体化口头指导的参与者效果最好。
指导方法的有效性呈梯度分布，个体化指导效果最理想。
