Williams Kristin A, Mithani Sara, Sadeghi Ghazal, Palomo Leena
Department of Community Dentistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
College of Nursing, University of Illinois Chicago, Peoria, IL 61605, USA.
Dent J (Basel). 2018 Jan 10;6(1):2. doi: 10.3390/dj6010002.
This randomized, single-blinded, controlled study compares the effectiveness of two modes of delivering the same set of oral hygiene instructions: those loaded on a computer-assisted teaching format versus those given personally by a self-care instructor.
60 participants with mild to moderate periodontitis were randomized to either the computer-teaching format or the self-care instructor. Plaque score and bleeding indices were assessed at baseline and at 4 week re-evaluation to compare the instructional modalities.
At baseline, there was no difference in the parameters between the two groups. At re-evaluation, all parameters were significantly improved compared to baseline; however, there was no difference between any parameters in the computer group versus the instructor. Plaque score was significantly different between younger and older participants, such that participants under 50 years old had lower plaque scores when they received instructions using the computer format (72.5 ± 12.6 vs. 87.2 ± 10.4; < 0.001). Additionally, in those under-50 year olds, plaque scores were significantly better in the group using the computer format (87.2 ± 10.4 vs. 78.3 ± 15.6; = 0.03).
Computer teaching formats and self-care instructors are both effective means of communicating oral hygiene instructions. Computer-assisted instruction format effectiveness may amplify as the population ages. Applications of computer formats teaching oral hygiene instructions and cost effectiveness comparison studies warrant significant future investigation.
本随机、单盲、对照研究比较了两种提供同一套口腔卫生指导方式的有效性:加载在计算机辅助教学格式上的指导与由自我护理指导教师亲自提供的指导。
60名轻度至中度牙周炎患者被随机分为计算机教学组或自我护理指导教师组。在基线时和4周重新评估时评估菌斑评分和出血指数,以比较指导方式。
在基线时,两组之间的参数没有差异。在重新评估时,与基线相比所有参数都有显著改善;然而,计算机组与指导教师组之间的任何参数都没有差异。年轻参与者和年长参与者之间的菌斑评分有显著差异,以至于50岁以下的参与者在使用计算机格式接受指导时菌斑评分较低(72.5±12.6对87.2±10.4;<0.001)。此外,在50岁以下的人群中,使用计算机格式的组菌斑评分显著更好(87.2±10.4对78.3±15.6;=0.03)。
计算机教学格式和自我护理指导教师都是传达口腔卫生指导的有效手段。随着人群年龄增长,计算机辅助教学格式的有效性可能会增强。计算机格式教学口腔卫生指导的应用和成本效益比较研究值得未来进行大量调查。