RESUMEN
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of 0.5% tea, 2% neem, and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwashes on oral health. Materials and Methods: A randomized blinded controlled trial with 30 healthy human volunteers of age group 18-25 years was carried out. The subjects were randomly assigned to 3 groups i.e., group A - 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (bench mark control), Group B - 2% neem, and group C - 0.5% tea of 10 subjects per group. Plaque accumulation and gingival condition were recorded using plaque index and gingival index. Oral hygiene was assessed by simplified oral hygiene index (OHIS). Salivary pH was assessed by indikrom pH strips. Plaque, gingival, and simplified OHI scores as well as salivary pH were recorded at baseline, immediately after 1 st rinse, after 1 week, 2 nd week, and 3 rd week. The 3 rd week was skipped for group A. Results: Mean plaque and gingival scores were reduced over the 3 week trial period for experimental and control groups. Anti-plaque effectiveness was observed in all groups and the highest being in group C (P < 0.05). Neem and tea showed comparative effectiveness on gingiva better than chlorhexidine (P < 0.05). The salivary pH rise was sustained and significant in Group B and C compared to Group A. Oral hygiene improvement was better appreciated in Group B and Group C. Conclusion: The effectiveness of 0.5% tea was more compared to 2% neem and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouth rinse.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To investigate the practical value of using questionnaires (self perceived assessment) as compared with clinical examinations (normative assessment) and to evaluate the role of socioeconomic status and implications of the results in understanding the public perception of oral health. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional single-blind study. A purposive sample of 860 bank employees of Belgaum city, India, were asked to fill in a close-ended questionnaire inquiring about their socioeconomic status, dental, periodontal health levels and treatment needs. Clinical examinations, employing the WHO dentition status and Community Periodontal Index, were performed to determine normative status and needs. Perceived and normative assessments were compared for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Results: The kappa values ranged from 0 (treatment needs) to 0.67 (for prosthesis). The degree of agreement with the following kappa values and sensitivity was seen in filled teeth (0.52, 60%), missing teeth (0.62, 83.8%), and prosthesis (0.67, 58.3%). However, the disagreement was seen with all other questions with average kappa value of 0.20. Conclusions: Self-assessment questionnaires were of low value in evaluating dental, periodontal health status and treatment needs in the study subjects. Findings reflect a low level of awareness that may influence care-seeking behavior and socioeconomic status has a clear role to play in dental health perception.