The effect of supervised oral hygiene on the gingiva of children. Progression and inhibition of gingivitis.

Abstract

The effect of prolonged supervision of tooth brushing on gingival health and oral hygiene in a group of school children 12–13 years of age was investigated. The subjects were divided into one experimental group and one control group, each of 32 children.A specially trained dental nurse supervised the daily tooth brushing of the members of the experimental group. The control group members were not subjected to any form of supervised or controlled oral hygiene procedure. The gingival state and the oral hygiene were recorded according to index systems proposed by Löe & Silness (1963) and Silness & Löe (1964).The data obtained from an examination in 1965 were compared with those from a re‐examination in 1966, i.e. after two years and three years of supervised tooth brushing.The two examinations revealed that:Mean GI values of 0.22 and 0.24 in the experimental group and 0.78 and 0.95 in the control group were obtained at the first and second examination. The difference between the two groups at each examination was found to be statistically significant at the 0.1 per cent level.An increase in gingivitis occurred during the year that elapsed between the two examinations. The increase was noted in both groups, but was small and statistically insignificant in the experimental group, whereas in the control group the difference was greater and statistically significant at the 5 per cent level.In the control group, the condition of the gingivae worsened during the study in all four regions examined. Of all tooth areas, 75 per cent showed an increase in gingivitis.In the experimental group, a significant decrease in gingivitis was noted in the anterior region of both the upper and the lower jaw, whereas the state of the gingivae found the molars had worsened. Of all areas examined, 56 per cent showed improved gingival health.The individual mean plaque index for all teeth in the experimental group was 0.70 compared with 1.62 in the control groupThe mean GI‐differences between the examinations in 1965 and 1966 showed that, in spite of the great difference in GI found already at the first examination (GI in the experimental group only 1/4th of that in the control group), the gingival condition in the experimental group had improved compared with that in the control group during the test year.