Diagnostic Validity of Self-Perceived Dental Caries in Indonesian Young Adolescents Aged 12-15 Years

Maharani, Diah Ayu; Kurniawan, Jessica; Agustanti, Ary; Rosalien, Robbykha; Rahardjo, Anton; Cavalcanti, Alessandro Leite

doi:10.4034/pboci.2019.191.04

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixteen publications reported a prevalence of more than 50% (Adeniyi and Odusanya 2017; Alzahrani 2019; Barreto et al 2017;Bashirian et al 2018;Dandi et al 2011;Van Dijk et al 2006;Hu et al 2018;Petersen 2011, 2009;Mishra et al 2018;Naidoo et al 2001;Oliveira et al 2018;Santos et al 2019;Shekhawat et al 2016;Shidara et al 2007;Soares et al 2015). Only ten studies reported a prevalence of less than 10% (Ananthakrishnan et al 2001;Booth et al 1992;Hardy et al 2018;Karibe et al 2015;Lemes et al 2015;Rupali et al 2010;Sarri et al 2012;Siegal et al 2004;Siqueira et al 2013;Sousa et al 2014) and 18 publications reported prevalence between 10 and 20% (Bastos et al 2008;Corrêa-Faria et al 2018;Dogar et al 2011;Du et al 2011;Evans et al 1995;Figueiredo et al 2011;Goettems et al 2018;Guskuma et al 2017;Kamran et al 2017;Kumar et al 2014;Lewis and Stout 2010;Maharani et al 2019;Misrohmasari et al 2018;Perera and Ekanayake 2008;Ratnayake and Ekanayake 2005;Tr...…”

Section: Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighteen publications reported prevalence of pain for children less (Carmichael et al 1989;Evans et al 1995;Ferreira-Júnior et al 2015;Moura-Leite et al 2008;Perazzo et al 2017;Tsakos et al 2012). Eight studies used the WHO index age groups 12 years (Range 12.09-71.4) [30.9% (95% CI 14.1-47.8)] (Andegiorgish et al 2017;Bastos et al 2008;Dandi et al 2011;Guskuma et al 2017;Jürgensen and Petersen 2009;Lopes et al 2013;Robinson et al 2005;Traebert et al 2005), four studies reported prevalence among 12 and 15 years old (Kumar et al 2016;Maharani et al 2019;Peres et al 2010;Shekhawat et al 2016) [28.8% (95% CI 12.9-44.7)] and one study reported prevalence in 15 years old (Perera and Ekanayake 2008).…”

Section: Agementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Global and regional estimates of dental pain among children and adolescents—systematic review and meta-analysis

Pentapati

Yeturu

Siddiq

2020

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim We aimed to evaluate the pooled prevalence of dental pain amongst children and adolescents. Methods Studies conducted in children and adolescents up to18 years of age and where prevalence of dental is reported or calculated were included. Search was performed in four major databases from inception to June 1st, 2019. Prevalence estimate at the maximal recall for the dental pain for the individual study was used to calculate the overall pooled estimate. Results The prevalence of dental pain ranged from 1.33 to 87.8% in the included publications for quantitative synthesis (n = 97). More than half of the publications reported the lifetime prevalence of dental pain (n = 51) while few studies reported the current prevalence of dental pain (n = 3) and only one study evaluated the dental pain in the past one week. Heterogeneity was high among the included publications (Q = 49,063.12; P < 0.001; df = 96 and I 2 = 99.8; P < 0.001). Overall pooled prevalence of dental pain was 32.7 (CI = 29.6-35.9). No difference was seen with respect to the trends in prevalence of dental pain (Coefficient: 0.005; 95% CI − 0.001-0.011; P-value: 0.101). Conclusion Two out of ten children below five years, four out of ten children between 6 and 12 years and three out of ten adolescents between 13 and 18 years would have experienced pain in the past. Overall, three out of ten children or adolescents might have experienced dental pain in the past. There was no difference in the pain prevalence between male and females. Studies from Africa reported highest pooled prevalence (50.1%) with least being from Australia (20.7%). Studies from India (40.4%), China (41.3%) and Iran (42.6%) reported high pooled prevalence estimates of dental pain.

show abstract

Section: Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Global and regional estimates of dental pain among children and adolescents—systematic review and meta-analysis

Pentapati

Yeturu

Siddiq

2020

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The comparison between clinical (normative) and self-perceived assessment are important to evaluate the efficacy diagnostic data of oral health status (Maharani et al, 2019). Traditionally, the clinical or normative assessment has been predominantly used in dentistry to measure oral health status and treatment needs (Alves, de Andrade, & Vettore, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Self-perceived and Clinically Diagnosed Gingival Status among 12–15-year-old Children in Indonesia

Rosalien

Saragih

Agustanti

et al. 2019

Asian Pac Isl Nurs J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A few studies have revealed the self-perceived gingival status using questionnaires among children. Perceived health is a crucial factor that has an impact on quality of life. The objective of the study was to assess self-perceived and clinically diagnosed gingival status among children in Indonesia. This was a cross-sectional study of 494 schoolchildren (aged 12–15 years). Periodontal status was recorded using the gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI) based on the World Health Organization standards. Data were collected through a brief visual, non-invasive clinical oral examination and a self-administered questionnaire. The sensitivity and specificity of self-perceived assessment were calculated using normative assessment as the gold standard. This study showed that self-perceived need for dental treatment showed the highest sensitivity (86% using PI and 85% using GI) and self-perceived swollen gums showed the highest specificity (89% using PI and 88% using GI) for clinically diagnosed plaque (PI cut-off value: 0.74) and gingival problems (GI cut-off value: 0.51). In conclusion, both self-perceived variables showed significant discordance between their respective sensitivity and specificity. Self-perceived information is at a higher-level unawareness that does not reflect the current gingival status. Thus, public health strategies are needed to improve the awareness of better oral health among children by promoting, empowering, and advocating.

show abstract

“…Based on the number of teeth clinically-assessed with dental caries, two cut-off points were used to categorize the presence and absence of caries as follows [19]:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of self-reported oral health among Indonesian adolescents

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aim With the recognition of health as a subjective state, self-reported oral health has been applied in many epidemiological studies. However, the validity of self-reports may vary across different age groups and socio-cultural backgrounds and by using different tools. This study aimed to assess the validity of self-reported oral health of 15-year-old Indonesian adolescents. Materials and methods This study used data from the Indonesian National Oral Health Survey, a part of the Indonesian Basic Health Survey 2018. The study included 572 15-year-old Indonesian adolescents. We compared the presence of clinically assessed dental caries, tooth loss, and fillings following the World Health Organization Basic Health Survey method and questionnaire-based self-reported oral conditions using McNemar test. The sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and likelihood ratios (LRs) of self-reports were calculated using clinical assessment as the reference standard. The overall accuracy of self-reports in identifying the clinical condition was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Self-reports significantly underestimated the clinical presence of caries (39.3% and 67.1%) and overestimated the clinical presence of tooth loss (9.3% and 4.2%) and filling (4.7% and 2.4%, p < 0.05). All self-reported conditions had higher Sp (at least 70.3%) than Sn (max 54.2%) and the AUC for all self-reported conditions were < 0.7. Self-reporting the presence of fillings had the highest LR+ = 11. Conclusions Self-reporting oral health in Indonesian adolescents had low accuracy. Further studies of other methods of self-reporting are needed before they can be used to assess adolescents’ oral health in epidemiological surveys.

show abstract

Diagnostic Validity of Self-Perceived Dental Caries in Indonesian Young Adolescents Aged 12-15 Years

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Global and regional estimates of dental pain among children and adolescents—systematic review and meta-analysis

Global and regional estimates of dental pain among children and adolescents—systematic review and meta-analysis

Validity of Self-perceived and Clinically Diagnosed Gingival Status among 12–15-year-old Children in Indonesia

Validation of self-reported oral health among Indonesian adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About