Oral Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Among University Students in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate oral health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among a sample of senior students at King Abdulaziz University (KAU), and to assess differences among these factors between genders. METHODS: A total of 1177 senior university students at KAU were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants were selected by stratified random sampling. KAU has three main streams categorized by field of study. One faculty was randomly selected from each stream. Information regarding oral health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors was collected with a validated self-administered questionnaire. A knowledge score was calculated, and predictors of oral health knowledge were assessed by linear regression. RESULTS: In general, the mean oral health knowledge score of females (8.1 ± 1.8) was significantly higher than that of males (7.2 ± 2.1) out of 13. Relative to males, females reported a greater frequency of teeth cleaning and of using a toothbrush with proper technique (p < 0.001). Females were also more likely to have ever visited a dentist than males (95% and 86%, respectively). The linear regression model revealed that students in non-medical faculties and those who were not shown how to brush their teeth by a dentist had lower oral health knowledge scores, than their counterparts. Students older than 22 years and females were more likely to have higher oral health knowledge scores than were their counterparts. CONCLUSION: Oral health knowledge was relatively low among the university students, but females showed better oral health knowledge and behaviors than males did.

A Descriptive Analysis of Clinical Articles Published in the Last 50 Years in the Dental Literature.

AIMS: This article describes the methodologies used in the dental literature and described how these approaches have changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three ISI peer-reviewed journals were included in the analyses. Data were extracted independently by 11 investigators and in duplicate. Any differences in the results were resolved via discussion or by a third reviewer when necessary. Data were collected regarding the methodology used in the article, and dental specialty related to different study designs. In the case in which more than one study design or specialty was reported, reviewers were trained to identify the main methodology/specialty. RESULTS: The majority (36.96%) used a case report (CR) as the primary methodology, followed by a clinical trial (CT) (18.21%) or randomized CT (15.11%). The least used methodologies included a cohort (COH) study (6.07%) or a systematic review (SA)/meta-analysis (MA) (6.73%). Periodontology published the highest number of case controls (CCs) (46.8%), randomized CTs (RCTs) (29.9%), cross-sectional (CS) studies (26.0%), SRs/MAs (19.8%), and CTs (17.1%). Oral and maxillofacial surgery published the highest number of CRs/case series (54.5%) and COH studies (30.5%), whereas operative dentistry published the lowest number of CRs/case series (0.7%), CCs (2.9%), and SRs/MAs (2.3%). CRs/case series retain the highest number of publications across all time points in the dental literature overall. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate an improvement in the types of research and the pyramid of evidence, which will help in applying evidence-based dentistry (EBD) in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Types of studies used in the dental field are not yet investigated. Thus, little is known about the common study design types in dental literature. This can affect the decision made regarding technique, risk factors, prevention, or treatment.