Evaluation of parental awareness regarding their child's oral hygiene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine parental awareness about their child's oral hygiene and its associated factors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 396 parents and their 3- to 6-year-old children were selected by randomized cluster sampling from Shiraz kindergartens in 2013. Parents completed a questionnaire on their perception of their child's oral hygiene. The children received a dental examination, and their dental cleaning status was determined using Simplified Debris Index. Parental awareness was determined by comparing parents' perception of their child's oral hygiene with the results of the dental examination. Associations between demographic factors and parental awareness were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty per cent of the parents were aware of their child's teeth cleaning status. Higher percentage of parents with university degree (P < 0.001) and parents whose child did not have a previous dental visit (P < 0.001) were aware. Also, more aware mothers were employed compared with homemakers (P = 0.002). Children of aware parents had lower dmft (P < 0.001) and better oral hygiene (P = 0.001) than those of unaware parents. Parents who perceived overall oral health status of their child as good (P < 0.001) as well as those who believed that their child did not have any cavities (P < 0.001) were more likely to be aware of their child's teeth cleaning than those who perceived otherwise. CONCLUSION: Many parents were not aware of their child's oral hygiene. Educational interventions should be provided to young families to increase parental knowledge and skills that help them recognize their child's dental needs. The interventions are more necessary for low socioeconomic parents and for the parents of children with poor oral hygiene.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".