Effect of oral health education model on tooth brushing behavior and oral hygiene among children with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an oral health education model in improving tooth brushing behavior and oral hygiene among children with intellectual disabilities. Material and Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental design with a pretest-posttest control group. The intervention involves implementing the “Tell-Show-Feel-Do” educational model for the intervention group, while the control group receives standard oral health education. Data collection is conducted at baseline and after the intervention period 21 day. The Tell-Show-Feel-Do (TSFD) educational model was implemented in three sessions, with a 4-day gap between each session, and each session lasting 120 minutes. Participants were selected using simple random sampling, focusing on children with intellectual disabilities attending a Special School for Children with Disabilities. A total of 52 children were recruited, divided equally into two groups: 26 in the intervention group and 26 in the control group, taken from September 02 to October 11, 2024. Results: The analysis seen significant differences in the changes in tooth brushing behavior and oral hygiene between the intervention and control groups, as determined by an independent sample t-test (p<0.001). This suggests that the intervention was effective in improving oral hygiene outcomes compared to the control group, where no notable improvement was observed. Conclusion: This study confirms that structured oral health education improves tooth brushing and hygiene in children with intellectual disabilities. Implementing such programs in special education settings, school curricula, and community initiatives can enhance long-term oral health outcomes and overall well-being. KEYWORDS Child; Health education, dental; Intellectual disability; Oral hygiene; Toothbrushing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".