Factors Associated With Periodontal Diseases and Oral Hygiene Status Among Community-Dwelling Adults With Physical Disabilities in Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence concerning oral health among disabled people capable of independently performing oral hygiene practices. This study investigated factors associated with periodontal diseases and oral hygiene status among community-dwelling, working-age Thai adults with physical disabilities. MATERIAL & METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between 1st February to 15th March 2018 at the Community Center for Independent Living, a disability community club located in Pathum Thani province, Thailand. A total of 198 adults with physical disabilities completed self-report questionnaires. Occurrence of bleeding on probing and presence of dental plaque accumulation were obtained through full-mouth periodontal examinations by a trained and calibrated examiner. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Toothbrushing frequency of less than twice per day was associated with periodontal diseases (OR = 8.25, p = 0.001). Higher levels of sweets consumption (OR = 3.17, p = 0.003) and infrequent toothbrushing (OR = 4.26, p = 0.001) were related to poor oral hygiene. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who performed improper oral health behaviors would suffer from periodontal diseases and poorer oral hygiene status. Although participants are capable of performing daily self-care, their physical limitation is a possible explanation for difficulty in appropriate personal oral hygiene practices, which can lead to a lower quality of oral cleanliness. Therefore, professional oral health education and personal oral hygiene instruction tailor-fit to their specific needs are necessary to increase the quality of toothbrushing practices and proper oral health behaviors among persons with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".