Toothbrushing Competency Among High‐risk Grade One Students: an Evaluation of Two Methods of Dental Health Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of dental health education (DHE) for improving toothbrushing competency among grade one students at high risk for dental diseases. METHODS: Fifty elementary schools in the former city of North York, Ontario, Canada, were assigned to one of two groups. In one group, students received a classroom-based DHE lesson that was reinforced by two small group sessions (n = 243). In the other group, students received only a single classroom-based DHE lesson (n = 206). Trained examiners assessed 11 toothbrushing skills at pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: At the preintervention test, few significant differences were found between the groups and many students did not display competency in fundamental oral health skills, such as placing a toothbrush at the gum line. Following DHE interventions, students in both groups demonstrated improvements in most skills. A significantly higher proportion of students who received both classroom and small group sessions displayed gains in competency in three skills, compared to students receiving only a classroom lesson. These skills were brushing anterior lingual surfaces, brushing posterior lingual surfaces, and brushing all areas in a routine fashion. Students receiving only a classroom session did not display greater improvements in any skill areas compared to "classroom plus small group" students. Some students in both groups still lacked fundamental skills at the end of the DHE program. CONCLUSIONS: While one must exercise caution in interpreting the results due to several methodologic limitations, findings suggest that for high-risk grade one students, a classroom-based lesson combined with small group sessions is a more effective method of improving toothbrushing skills compared to a single classroom-based lesson.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".