ABSTRACT
Although Down syndrome children are known to be greatly predisposed to periodontal disease when compared with normal children, the preventive dental health practices of non-institutionalized Down syndrome children have not been well reported. This questionnaire study of 25 Down syndrome children aged 1-14 years compared with 25 normal control children showed that Down syndrome children have poorer dental health practices compared with normal children. Significantly greater numbers of Down syndrome children were weaned from the bottle at greater than 18 months of age (56% vs 24%, p less than 0.05) or had taken a bottle to bed (40% vs 12%, p less than 0.05), indicating their increased risk for the development of nursing bottle caries. In addition, Down syndrome children were receiving less help during tooth brushing (60% vs 84%, p less than 0.05), were older when they first visited the dentist, and less likely to be taking regular fluoride supplements. These results indicate that Down syndrome children are further disadvantaged by poor preventive dental health practices and should be targeted for increased preventive dental care.
Subject(s)
Dental Care for Disabled , Down Syndrome , Oral Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Bottle Feeding/adverse effects , Bottle Feeding/statistics & numerical data , Chi-Square Distribution , Child , Child, Preschool , Dental Caries/etiology , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Diet, Cariogenic , Female , Fluorides/therapeutic use , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Infant , Male , Oral Hygiene/psychology , Parents , Risk Factors , Sucrose/adverse effects , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The volume of impressions, before and after disinfection in a gluteraldehyde solution for longer than ten hours (that is, sterilization), was measured indirectly from dies produced from the impressions. Three elastomeric impression materials were used in both acrylic resin and poly-vinyl-chloride 'trays' to form the impressions. One impression material appeared to be practically superior to the others with respect to variability of volume. The effect of tray material on change in volume (calculated as after disinfection minus before disinfection) was significant for one impression material; acrylic trays produced the greatest effect. The change in volume was significant for two impression materials; acrylic trays were associated with greater increase in volume. It was concluded that if impressions are to be sterilized, a tray material having minimal potential to absorb disinfectant should be used.
