Comparison of impact of oral hygiene instructions given via sign language and validated customized oral health education skit video on oral hygiene status of children with hearing impairment.

INTRODUCTION: Children with special health-care needs have limitations in oral hygiene performance due to their potential motor, sensory, and intellectual disabilities and so are more prone to have compromised oral health. AIM: This study aimed to compare the impact of oral hygiene instructions given via sign language and a validated customized oral health education skit video on oral hygiene status of children with hearing impairment (CHI). SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional ethical committee for research activities. The study was carried out across CHI schools of Wardha district, Maharashtra, India. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-eight CHI, within the age group of 6-13 years, were divided into two educational intervention groups: customized oral health educational video (Group A) and sign language (Group B). A structured questionnaire was designed to gather information about the routine oral hygiene practices via the Indian Sign Language. Baseline Gingival Index (GI)-S and Plaque Index-S indices were recorded. Based on the group assigned, oral hygiene instructions were given on a daily basis. Reassessment was done after 4 weeks. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Unpaired t-tests were performed (P < 0.05) to determine if significant differences exist between the two groups. RESULTS: Postintervention plaque scores between Group A and Group B were 0.12 ± 0.22 and 0.07 ± 0.22, respectively, and the difference between the two was statistically insignificant (P = 0.330). For GI, scores in Group A and Group B were 0.03 ± 0.12 and 0.04 ± 0.12, respectively, and the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.669). CONCLUSION: Both sign language and the validated customized video modeling have been proved to be positively influencing the oral hygiene status of CHI equivalently.

Anesthetic Efficacy of Buccal Infiltration Articaine versus Lidocaine for Extraction of Primary Molar Teeth.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine, both containing epinephrine, using a single buccal infiltration for extraction of primary molars.A total of 100 children requiring primary molar extraction received buccal infiltration using either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine, both with epinephrine, with 50 children in each group. The Wong-Baker Facial Pain Scale (FPS) was used to evaluate pain perception subjectively. The heart rate and the blood pressure values were assessed objectively as an indirect measure of physiological pain perception. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for comparing mean pain scores, heart rate, and blood pressure in both the groups. Single buccal infiltration with articaine was sufficient for achieving palatal or lingual anesthesia in all the children receiving it while all children in the lidocaine group required supplemental anesthesia. The mean FPS value was found to be higher in lidocaine group and was statistically significant. The mean heart rate recorded during the intervention was less than the mean baseline values in the articaine group, which was found to be statistically significant. For pediatric patients age 7 to 12 years, single buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine is more effective compared to 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine for primarly molar extraction.