Healthy practices, social relationships and dental perceptions among US dentate adults.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored and described the effects of healthy practices and social relationships on dental perceptions among U.S. dentate adults. METHODS: Guided by the Alameda County Study: Health and Ways of Living, weighted data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 8,449 U.S. dentate adults aged 18-64 years were analyzed with SUDAAN 7.5.3. RESULTS: Healthy practices and social relationships showed protective effects against unfavorable dental perceptions after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, dental access, and related clinical dental status. Besides healthy practices and social relationships, education, family income, having dental visit in the past 12 months, having dental decay, having defective tooth condition, and number of natural teeth helped explain unfavorable dental perceptions in the adjusted model. Compared with persons who had high social relationships and high healthy practices, those who had low social relationships with very low, low and medium healthy practices were about five, times (OR=5.07; 99% CI=3.24, 7.91), almost four times (OR=3.61; 99% CI=2.22, 5.87), and two times (OR=2.24; 99% CI=1.37, 3.67) more likely, respectively, to have unfavorable dental perceptions. In the adjusted model, these odds ratios decreased to three (OR=3.30; 99% CI=2.01, 5.41), two (OR=2.06; 99% CI=1.15, 3.69) and non-significant difference, consecutively. CONCLUSIONS: Influence of healthy practices and social relationships on dental health may encourage dental health professions to participate in general health behavior modifications and social actions to foster social relationships, in addition to preventive dental care.

Maryland dental hygienists' views of oral cancer prevention and early detection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to obtain in-depth information on dental hygienists' awareness and opinions of oral cancer, oral cancer examinations, and related factors. These findings were intended to supplement a previous statewide survey of Maryland dental hygienists on the subject. METHODS: A professional focus group moderator conducted two focus groups in Maryland. Two types of focus groups were used--one face-to-face focus group session with 10 dental hygienists in the Baltimore area and one telephone focus group among 7 dental hygienists who practiced on the Eastern Shore. Criterion-purposeful sampling and qualitative content analysis were used. RESULTS: Six major themes emerged from the focus groups: dental hygienists' lack of awareness of Maryland's oral cancer statistics, level of training to provide oral cancer examinations, provision of oral cancer examinations and barriers for not providing them, reactions to Maryland surveys of dental hygienists and dentists, assessment of oral cancer risk factors, and interest in additional training. CONCLUSIONS: The focus groups provided in-depth information about why oral cancer examinations are or are not provided on a routine basis, as well as ideas for providing updates on oral cancer prevention and early detection for dental hygienists. Moreover, some participants recommended that updates on how to conduct an oral cancer examination be a requirement, as updates on infection control are now.