Clinical examination included evaluation of DMFT–DMFS and dmft–dm

Clinical examination included evaluation of DMFT–DMFS and dmft–dmfs (the same) scores, simplified oral hygiene index (SOHI), occlusion. TMJ function, Hypoplasia of first permanent molars and dental anomalies were reported according to WHO criteria [10]. Furthermore, OHR-QoL questionnaires were completed by parents or guardians of young children

(2–7 years old) or by older children themselves. The validity and reliability of Iranian version of questionnaires have been evaluated previously [11-13] Due to variability of age groups, different types of questionnaires were used: Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS) was chosen for children 2–7 years old [11]; Child Perception Questionnaire this website (CPQ) was applied to 8–10-year olds [12] and Child Oral Impact Daily Performance (Child-OIPD) for ages 11–15 [13]. ECOHIS and CPQ are 5-point Likert scales R788 datasheet with options from 0 = never to 4 = every day/almost every day. ECOHIS comprises 14 questions classified into two domains: child impact (nine questions) and family impact (five questions). Iranian version

of CPQ8-10 included 24 questions in four domains: oral symptoms (nine questions), functional limitation (six questions), emotional wellbeing (four questions) and social wellbeing (five questions). The OIPD includes eight questions with maximum score of nine for each question, depending on severity and duration of symptoms. The lower scores denote a better OHR-QoL situation. Independent t-test, chi-square, Mann–Whitney, Pearson correlation and logistic regression were used for statistical analyses. Demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups are presented in Tables 1 Anacetrapib and 2. The normality of distribution parameters was evaluated by One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test first and hence t-test was applied to dmft–dmfs and S-OHI, and other variables were evaluated by Mann–Whitney and chi-square test and pearson correlation. There was a history of oral bleeding in 26(55%) of 46 CBD patients, mainly during the time of eruption/shedding of primary teeth, followed by trauma-induced bleeding, especially in the tongue region.

More CBDs were caries-free in primary dentition significantly compared with controls: 18(39.1%) vs. 11(23.9%), (P = 0.03, t = −2.17). The resultant score for permanent teeth was not significant: 19(41.3%) vs. 15(32.6%), (P = 0.68, t = 0.404). A significantly lower decayed ‘primary and permanent tooth surfaces’ were found in patients (Mann–Whitney z = −0.2.6, P = 0.009), Table 1. Table 2 presents the other oral parameters. TMJ status was evaluated by clinical examination and history of TMJ clicking, pain and restricted mouth opening. Clicking was the only detected complaint in both groups (Table 2). Hypoplasia of first permanent molars as white, well-defined/distributed opacities was observed with no difference between groups. Anomalies of shape, size or colour of teeth were not found according to clinical examinations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>