Knowledge and Attitude of Preschool Children Parents Towards Professional Topical Fluoride Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Since various factors such as parents' attitudes and knowledge can affect the use of fluoride, this study aims to assess the relationship between children's parents' attitudes and knowledge towards preventive caries methods with their children's caries experience. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 110 parents of preschool children in Ahvaz were randomly selected. Using a questionnaire, parents' knowledge and attitude about fluoride therapy were evaluated, and their children's teeth were examined for dmft. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: The mean of parents' knowledge about caries prevention methods was 2.22 ±3.23 of 9, and the knowledge of 68% was poor, 21% moderate, and 11% was good. The mean of parents' attitude about caries prevention techniques was 9.5±2.05 of 14, and the attitude of 0% was poor,60% moderate, and 40% was good. There was no significant relationship between parents' knowledge with gender, age, education, source of information, and dmft. There was a direct relationship between knowledge and the experience of professional topical fluoride (PTF). There was no significant relationship between the attitudes of parents with gender, the history of PTF, and the source of information. There was a direct, significant relationship between parents’ attitude and their educational level, age, and child’s dmft. Children's experience of PTF was 18.6%. Conclusion: Parents' knowledge and attitude towards fluoride roles in the prevention of dental caries were low. So, assigning programs to increase parents' knowledge and, subsequently, using caries prevention techniques is suggested.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".