Effect of a Preventive Oral Health Program Starting during Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study Comparing Immigrant and Native Women and Their Children

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate whether including pregnant women in a preventive dental program prevented the appearance of caries in their children up to the age of 6, and whether the effect was similar in children of immigrant and non-immigrant women. In phase I, 90 pregnant women, 45 immigrants and 45 natives, were taught about the development and prevention of caries. In phase II the oral health of their children at the age of 6 (n = 90) was evaluated, along with a control group of children of natives and immigrants of the same age (n = 90). A survey was used to determine participants’ backgrounds and habits. A multivariate study of the results was performed using R-core software. The number of children without caries was 128 (71.1%), whereas 52 (28.9%) had caries, 15 from the protocol (16.67%) and 37 from the control group (41.11%), with statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). The mean number of caries for the children in the protocol was 0.62 ± 2 and in the control group it was 1.88 ± 2.9 (p = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis the risk of developing caries was higher for the condition of being the child of an immigrant (OR = 11.137), inadequate oral health (OR = 4.993), the children being overweight at the age of 6 (OR = 10.680), and the consumption of candies (OR = 5.042). In conclusion, the preventive protocols started during pregnancy reduced caries in participants’ children, which suggests that these protocols should be encouraged. Because immigrant children are more vulnerable to caries, they and their parents should be included in preventive programs once they arrive in the host country.

Caries Experience and Increment in Children Attending Kindergartens with an Early Childhood Caries Preventive Program Compared to Basic Prophylaxis Measures—A Retrospective Cohort Study

“…With regards to tooth brushing, these confounders were not assessed in the present study but should be taken into account in a prospective cohort study. Promising caries prevention concepts can be found in the literature, which start during pregnancy [ 64 ], implement interdisciplinary concepts [ 45 , 65 ], and use motivational interviewing to encourage parents to change their behavior [ 66 ] toward a tooth-friendly diet and regular dental care with fluoride toothpaste if caries is already present. In order to reach especially the caregivers of children with increased caries risk, an interdisciplinary prevention program should be based on a low-threshold “come structure” in combination with outreach care [ 45 , 67 , 68 ].…”

Ultra-processed food consumption and dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Figure 5 shows that the pooled OR of UPF consumption and dental caries was 1.55 (95% CI 1.37-1.75; I 2 = 91%; P <0.001; total sample size = 35,427) in one case-control (39) and 18 crosssectional studies. (26, 27, 29, 31-38, 41-46, 48-52, 55, 56, 58, 61-67) According to subgroup analysis, higher effects of UPF in dental caries were found in children and adolescents 6 -19 years of age (26,29,31,34,39,44,45,49,52,61,62,65,67) , sample size with < 500 (29,35,39,46,48,52) and 500 -1,500 participants (26,31,34,41,45,49,61,62) , moderate or high risk of bias assessment (29,31,34,39,41,44,46,48,61,62,65) , and in those where prevalence of dental caries was > 70% (26,46,52,67) (Appendix 3). Lower heterogeneity (< 50%) was found among studies where dental caries prevalence was > 70% (Appendix 3).…”

“…Table 1 presents the main characteristics of forty-two selected studies, in general and according to the type of study and the data analysis (included or not in the meta-analysis). Overall, most studies were conducted in low-middle income countries (26)(27)(28)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)49,51,52,(54)(55)(56)(57)59,60,(62)(63)(64)66,67) and published from 2010 to present (26)(27)(28)(29)32,33,(35)(36)(37)(39)(40)(41)(42)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)…”

“…Half of the studies had a sample population ranging from 501 to 1500 participants (26)(27)(28)30,31,34,(41)(42)(43)45,49,53,54,(56)(57)(58)(59)61,62,64,66) , and in all categories of data analysis, this sample size was the most frequent observed. Most longitudinal studies included in the meta-analysis investigated children aged < 6 years (28,30,40,53,57,59,60) , while children 6-19 years of age were more commonly investigated in case-control and cross-sectional studies (26,29,31,34,35,37,39,41,(44)(45)(46)48,49,52,(61)(62)(63)65,67) included in the meta-analysis and those included only in qualitative synthesis (27,…”

Factors influencing adoption of oral health promotion by antenatal care providers in Moyo district, North-Western Uganda

“…In low and middle-income countries, the prevalence of oral diseases continues to increase, moreover, tooth decay is rapidly increasing among adults and there will be a huge burden of this health problem in the future if sustainable programs are not put in place [13, 14]. The good oral health of a pregnant woman should be considered to be of utmost importance for dental practitioners and antenatal care providers [15, 16, 17, 18]. Integration of Oral health into primary care has been implemented in some health care systems to reduce the burden of oral health disease and to improve access to oral health care, especially for disadvantaged populations and communities [19, 20, 21].…”