不同干预方式对儿童口腔卫生知识及龋齿的影响  

The effects of different intervention methods on oral hygiene knowledge and dental caries in children

作　　者：吴红英[1] 王营营[1] 王红美[1] 王兴任[1] 

机构地区：[1]海南省疾病预防控制中心,海南海口570203

出　　处：《中国健康教育》2016年第8期707-710,共4页Chinese Journal of Health Education

基　　金：海南省自然基金项目(814337)

摘　　要：目的 探讨不同干预方式对儿童口腔卫生知识及龋齿的影响。方法 整群随机抽取7~9岁儿童546名,分A、B组分别进行学校教育、学校教育和家庭教育相结合的健康教育干预,并第一磨牙窝沟封闭,干预前后检查第一磨牙龋患和口腔卫生知识问卷调查;抽取272名儿童做对照,不做任何干预;用SPSS13.0统计分析。结果 干预前后各组学生和家长口腔卫生知识及其行为改变差异有统计学意义（P〈0.001）。A组、B组和对照组知晓率、刷牙率和健康行为干预前差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.888,P=0.641;χ2=1.400,P=0.497;χ2=0.574,P=0.751）。干预后3组间差异有统计学意义,经过加权后3组之间两两比较,除了刷牙率A、B二组之间差异无统计学意义,其余各观察指标在各组间差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.001）。A组、B组和对照组龋患率分别为42.3%、41.9%、39.5%,差异无统计学意义（χ2=20.056,P=0.358）,继发龋率分别为3.6%、2.4%、20.8%,A、B组间差异无统计学意义（χ2=1.518,P=0.218）,A组、B组与对照组之间差异有统计学意义（χ2=92.683,Pa〈0.001;χ2=95.676,Pb〈0.001）;A、B二组龋齿降低相对有效率分别为81.6%、89.7%。结论健康教育干预对儿童口腔卫生的改善是有效的,学校教育和家庭教育相结合的干预模式效果更为显著,窝沟封闭是成功的防龋措施,采取有效的健康教育、窝沟封闭等综合干预措施,就会大大减少儿童口腔疾病。Objective To investigate the effect of different intervention methods on oral hygiene knowledge and dental caries in children. Methods 546 children aged 7 -9 were divided into group A and B by cluster random sampling method. School education, school education combined family education were carried out separately in the two groups. Then the pit and fissure in first molar were closed. Before and after intervention, the first molar caries and oral health knowledge questionnaire were investigated. 272 children were as control group without any intervention. SPSS 13.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results There were significant differences in oral health knowledge and behavior among the students and their parents before and after the intervention （P 〈 0. 001 ）. There was no significant difference between group A, B and control group in the rate of oral health awareness, the rate of correct tooth-brushing and health behavior before the intervention （ χ2 = 0. 888, P = 0. 641 ; χ2 = 1. 400, P = 0. 497 ; χ2 = 0. 574, P = 0. 751 ）. After the intervention, there were significant differences among the three groups by two-two comparison besides the rate of correct tooth-brushing between group A and B. The caries prevalence rate in group A, B and control group were 42. 3% , 41.9% and 39. 5% , and the secondary caries rate was 3.6% , 2.4% , 20. 8%. There was no significant difference between group A and B （ χ2 = 1.518, P = 0. 218 ）. Group A, B and control group were statistically significant （χ2 =92. 683, Pa〈0. 001 ; χ2 =95. 676, Ph 〈0. 001 ）. Relative effective rates of dental caries reduction in Group A and B were 81.6% , 89. 7%. Conclusion It is effective to improve the oral health of children by health education intervention. The effect of combination of school education and family education intervention model is more significant. Pit and fissure sealant is the success of the caries preventive measures. To take effective, comprehensive health education and sealant intervention measures will

关 键 词：儿童 龋齿 家长 口腔卫生 干预 

分 类 号：R193[医药卫生—卫生事业管理] R781.1[医药卫生—公共卫生与预防医学]