ライフサイエンスコーパス: oral hygiene

1 rolonged learning effect, including improved oral hygiene.

2 f oral in contrast to written instruction of oral hygiene.

3 ld and independent of tobacco consumption or oral hygiene.

4 re collected after 1, 2, 4, and 7 days of no oral hygiene.

5 dental disease easily prevented with better oral hygiene.

6 ients taking cyclosporin and those with poor oral hygiene.

7 ificant risk for GE in individuals with good oral hygiene.

8 tooth polishing and received instruction in oral hygiene.

9 entional therapy and improvement of personal oral hygiene.

10 focal presentation in the background of good oral hygiene.

11 as then performed coincident with 4 weeks of oral hygiene.

12 bacterial load on the teeth as mediated via oral hygiene.

13 y recur, especially in the patient with poor oral hygiene.

14 to the general public for use as adjuncts to oral hygiene.

15 sonal neglect may be diminished attention to oral hygiene.

16 ween PMT visits, patients must maintain good oral hygiene.

17 ter adjustment for age, body mass index, and oral hygiene.

18 n an IRT-dependent manner-despite maintained oral hygiene.

19 e plaque index (PI) was associated with poor oral hygiene.

20 situations with waning efficacy of personal oral hygiene.

21 eth immediately after patients had performed oral hygiene.

22 tive method for biofilm removal and improved oral hygiene.

23 independent of active smoking status or poor oral hygiene.

24 erformance might help to explain deficits in oral hygiene.

25 Subjects refrained from oral hygiene 24 hours before study visits.

26 2-2.9; P = 0.016) and pain/discomfort during oral hygiene (25% versus 5%; PR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.06-12.96

27 1-2.33; P = 0.05) and pain/discomfort during oral hygiene (28% versus 10%; PR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.1-5.1;

28 European periodontists rated poor oral hygiene (4.64 vs 4.45; P = 0.005) and history of pe

29 ) plaque; 2) smoking; 3) adverse loading; 4) oral hygiene; 5) use of antimicrobial gel/mouthrinse; 6)

30 ase-2 immunoassay was 96% sensitive for poor oral hygiene, 95% sensitive for chronic periodontitis (d

31 ents were acquired before a 3-week period of oral hygiene abstinence.

32 ime points: at Baseline and after 3 weeks of oral hygiene abstinence.

33 quadrant while continuing to perform normal oral hygiene activities in the contralateral (control) q

34 The odds of having poor oral hygiene (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.26; 95% confi

35 According to oral hygiene adjuvants use, they were categorized into t

36 Scale and polish (SP) and oral hygiene advice (OHA) are commonly provided in prima

37 ol is the most commonly recommended means of oral hygiene after periodontal surgery.

38 vitis levels would help to determine whether oral hygiene aids provide important health benefits.

39 l disease, which cannot be explained by poor oral hygiene alone and is related to changes in the immu

40 Saliva composition influences oral hygiene and disease states.

41 n health for at least 4 years; however, good oral hygiene and frequent recall visits as part of a com

42 n, but SES was also important for predicting oral hygiene and gingival bleeding.

43 GI = 0.65+/-0.303) indicated a high level of oral hygiene and gingival health.

44 gnificantly increased chances of having poor oral hygiene and gingivitis.

45 abit did not increase chances of having poor oral hygiene and gingivitis.

46 Patients with OSF had poorer oral hygiene and greater loss of attachment, probing dep

47 second trimester and following interviews on oral hygiene and lifestyle habits.

48 ntitis among patients who maintain excellent oral hygiene and low gingival bleeding scores.

49 This highlights the importance of good oral hygiene and managing conditions like diabetes to su

50 (93.0%) children aged 1 to 5 years had poor oral hygiene and mild gingivitis, respectively.

51 (72.9%) children aged 6 to 12 years had poor oral hygiene and mild gingivitis, respectively.

52 ric and oral H. pylori in patients with good oral hygiene and moderate socioeconomic status is not si

53 nd gingivitis was conducted using simplified oral hygiene and modified Community Periodontal Indices,

54 ll the participants received instructions on oral hygiene and one session of dental prophylaxis at ba

55 Poor oral hygiene and periodontal disease may promote orophar

56 elated to other factors, such as compromised oral hygiene and prolonged oral clearance due to extensi

57 me residents, though limited by insufficient oral hygiene and the population's high vulnerability.

58 At day 21, participants reinstituted oral hygiene and were followed for 4 weeks.

59 Groups were matched for sex, oral hygiene, and implant distribution, and patients wer

60 marginal bone loss around the implants, poor oral hygiene, and low compliance.

61 marginal bone loss around the implants, poor oral hygiene, and low compliance.

62 immunoassay with bleeding on probing (BOP), oral hygiene, and periodontal probing depth.

63 Persistent oral lesions, lack of effective oral hygiene, and plaque accumulation may increase the r

64 y elimination of local irritants, meticulous oral hygiene, and regular periodontal recall.

65 e sites for regeneration, were instructed in oral hygiene, and were prescribed systemic ciprofloxacin

66 ; interventions such as fluorides, sealants, oral hygiene, antimicrobials, and dental fillings became

67 to determine whether periodontitis and poor oral hygiene are associated with COVID-19.

68 tobacco usage, alcohol consumption, and poor oral hygiene are established risk factors.

69 tial to maintain periodontal health and good oral hygiene as an important measure for COVID-19 preven

70 ck-drawing test score indicates the need for oral hygiene assistance, but it is not suitable as a sin

71 assessment tool for determining the need for oral hygiene assistance.

72 y Bleeding Index (PBI) were used to evaluate oral hygiene at baseline and were repeated after 1, 3, a

73 243) adults (N = 97) judged to have moderate oral hygiene attended a primary dental care setting for

74 s), we measured the following variables: (a) oral hygiene, (b) gingival inflammation, (c) caries stat

75 ngs further support flossing as an important oral hygiene behavior to prevent oral disease progressio

76 sychological theory, would improve patients' oral hygiene behavior.

77 udy aims to identify predictors of performed oral hygiene behaviors (OHBs) based on the Theory of Pla

78 owledge, perceived severity and barriers and oral hygiene behaviors were at moderate level.The educat

79 % CI 0.003 to 0.21, p = 0.04), and increased oral hygiene behaviours (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.57,

80 Poor knowledge of OC risk factors, poor oral hygiene behaviours, low-income SES and ethnicity we

81 living in families with lower SES had worse oral hygiene (beta = -0.101; P = 0.01) and gingival blee

82 suggests regular dental check-ups and proper oral hygiene can help maintain implant health and preven

83 to account the individual's overall state of oral hygiene, caries, and periodontitis.

84 ntly grouped into "good," "fair," and "poor" oral hygiene categories based on a simplified oral hygie

85 nter-kingdom biofilm formation, exacerbating oral hygiene challenges.

86 Challenging periods of low oral hygiene compliance were expected.

87 Calculus analysis suggests that oral hygiene contributed to oral microbiome composition,

88 did not prevent them from performing optimal oral hygiene control.

89 4 weeks after completion of initial therapy (oral hygiene counseling, and scaling and root planing);

90 ch as gingival enlargement, gingivitis, poor oral hygiene, dental hypoplasia, and caries.

91 actors were more frequent including smoking, oral hygiene, dental visits, education, and income.

92 ach was given instructions in the use of the oral hygiene device and examined 2, 6, and 12 weeks foll

93 ase can be categorized as those which affect oral hygiene, diagnosis, gingival and oral mucosa, and a

94 abits (e.g. alcohol, cigarette consumption), oral hygiene (e.g. flossing, mouthwash), previous radiol

95 PHES group (experimental group) and standard oral hygiene education group (control group).

96 Gingival status (bleeding on probing) and oral hygiene effectiveness (dental calculus) were evalua

97 Worse socioeconomic status and poor oral hygiene effectiveness directly predicted gingival b

98 ral health beliefs, toothbrushing frequency, oral hygiene effectiveness, and gingivitis in low social

99 val bleeding via toothbrushing frequency and oral hygiene effectiveness.

100 The latter was directly linked to greater oral hygiene effectiveness.

101 these often painful oral lesions may hinder oral hygiene efforts resulting in increased plaque accum

102 r periodontal disease, such as smoking, poor oral hygiene, etc., this study provides some evidence th

103 After 8 weeks of normal oral hygiene following an oral prophylaxis, a second com

104 ization, participants individually performed oral hygiene for 6 weeks (T2) with the provided oral hyg

105 g monitoring decreased bone quality and good oral hygiene for promoting the periodontal-systemic heal

106 bridement, but one that simplifies home-care oral hygiene for the patient.

107 rlying these relationships include deficient oral hygiene, gingival bleeding, and bone and tooth loss

108 in saliva and urine and to determine whether oral hygiene, gingival inflammation, and tooth loss are

109 Full-mouth periodontal examination and oral hygiene habits were evaluated at two time points: T

110 Oral hygiene habits were recorded using a self-administe

111 r controlling for age, sex, education level, oral hygiene habits, and hyperlipidemia (P = 0.049).

112 hogens regarding background characteristics, oral hygiene habits, and recent dental procedures, but n

113 dy, we investigated the salivary microbiome, oral hygiene habits, and the salivary level of myeloid-r

114 uenced by confounding factors, such as diet, oral hygiene habits, fluoride exposure, and access to de

115 We aimed to compare oral hygiene habits, orodental status, and dental proced

116 -OS questionnaire (n = 259; 26.6%) had worse oral hygiene habits, periodontal disease risk factors, a

117 At our follow-up visit, the patient's oral hygiene had improved, he has removed the jewelry, a

118 In conclusion, FA patients that showed poor oral hygiene harbored higher proportions of the genera o

119 d recession defects in individuals with good oral hygiene have a high probability of progressing duri

120 led trials that interventions, which improve oral hygiene have positive effects on the prevention of

121 Including these adjuvants to conventional oral hygiene have shown to improve biofilm control durin

122 Dietary adjustments and oral hygiene help mitigate the risk of aspiration pneumo

123 Dietary intake, oral hygiene, high bacterial load, and decreased salivar

124 Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, and smoking were

125 nd superior in effect to placebo control and oral hygiene in reducing the clinical signs of adult per

126 Also the effectiveness of oral hygiene in untreated sites of the mouth could be ev

127 neumonia, and to investigate its relation to oral hygiene in using quantitative bronchial sampling.

128 y flow, insufficient fluoride exposure, poor oral hygiene, inappropriate methods of feeding infants,

129 with adjustment for: 1) age; 2) sex; and 3) oral hygiene index (OHI).

130 following five indices: 1) plaque index; 2) oral hygiene index (OHI); 3) gingival index (GI); 4) pro

131 The University of Mississippi Oral Hygiene Index (UM-OHI) was recorded for times 1 and

132 severity of gingivitis using the simplified oral hygiene index and the gingival index, respectively.

133 O'Leary index) appears to be a commonly used oral hygiene index for assessing oral health skills.

134 A new oral hygiene index was developed based on the concepts o

135 bing (BoP), probing pocket depth (PPD), CAL, oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S Index), Plaque Inde

136 s indices and clinical parameters, including oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S) score, gingival in

137 laque index (PI); 2) gingival index (GI); 3) oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S); and 4) microbiolo

138 ding on probing, probing depth, clinical AL, oral hygiene index-simplified), plaque index, and PISA)

139 The periodontal parameters assessed were oral hygiene index-simplified, gingival index, mean prob

140 pth, clinical attachment loss [Clinical AL], Oral Hygiene Index-simplified, plaque index, and periodo

141 ral hygiene categories based on a simplified oral hygiene index.

142 Despite having excellent oral hygiene, individuals with Sjogren's syndrome have e

143 Each patient received oral hygiene instruction and initial therapy prior to su

144 ts, with established periodontitis, received oral hygiene instruction and mechanical periodontal ther

145 red prior to initial therapy, which involved oral hygiene instruction and scaling and root planing.

146 d dental polishing, n = 28) or a test group (oral hygiene instruction with both supra- and subgingiva

147 SPC approaches performed by means of oral hygiene instruction with supra- and subgingival ins

148 equently assigned to either a control group (oral hygiene instruction with supragingival instrumentat

149 py, which included scaling and root planing, oral hygiene instruction, and an occlusal adjustment whe

150 n was treated with scaling and root planing, oral hygiene instruction, and antimicrobial mouthrinses.

151 The provision of sequential interventions, oral hygiene instruction, and subsequent professional pr

152 Initial treatment with mechanical therapy, oral hygiene instruction, frequent recalls, and systemic

153 manual brush even in subjects with no formal oral hygiene instruction.

154 of a self-regulation manual, and individual oral hygiene instruction.

155 received individual lifestyle counseling and oral hygiene instruction.

156 women received scaling and root planing plus oral hygiene instruction.

157 ive either doxycycline treatment (n = 23) or oral hygiene instruction/reinforcement (n = 22).

158 dontal therapy with scaling/root planing and oral hygiene instructions (n = 20) or no periodontal the

159 group received only mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions (Treatment 2).

160 The first phase of treatment included oral hygiene instructions and local corticosteroid admin

161 with tobacco-cessation counseling as well as oral hygiene instructions and professional dental prophy

162 ontitis received subgingival debridement and oral hygiene instructions each week for 4 weeks, plus 6

163 1), which included mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions supplemented by the local irri

164 dontal therapy (scaling and root planing and oral hygiene instructions).

165 curettage of the mandibular anterior region, oral hygiene instructions, and removal of the tongue stu

166 a treatment plan was developed that included oral hygiene instructions, mechanical debridement, and p

167 eline and 2 and 6 months after completion of oral hygiene instructions, motivation, and subgingival d

168 Patients were then managed by oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing of s

169 One to 3 months after cause-related therapy (oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing), th

170 ients received initial therapy consisting of oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing, and

171 ll-mouth scaling and root planing as well as oral hygiene instructions.

172 were seen after scaling and root planing and oral hygiene instructions.

173 control group was treated with MI and given oral hygiene instructions.

174 l hygiene for 6 weeks (T2) with the provided oral hygiene kits.

175 We hypothesized that better oral hygiene leads to increased tooth retention.

176 predictors of caries risk typically include oral hygiene level, counts of cariogenic micro-organisms

177 OH)D quintiles among individuals with a good oral hygiene level.

178 ertheless, concerning patients with DM, poor oral hygiene, male sex, and PON-1 phenotype were found t

179 interventions with emphasis on nutrition and oral hygiene may provide a feasible strategy to decrease

180 e was related to self-reported assessment of oral hygiene measures (P = 0.015) and to patient percept

181 Importantly, stringent oral hygiene measures and consistent maintenance therapy

182 All participants were instructed on strict oral hygiene measures and were advised to use 0.2% chlor

183 In this regard, professional-administered oral hygiene measures have been suggested to play a domi

184 present study confirms a critical effect of oral hygiene measures on restoration of microbial eubios

185 tive against biofilms on tooth surfaces, and oral hygiene measures such as brushing and flossing are

186 Recent studies show that oral hygiene measures such as tongue cleaning and dietar

187 ing a 6-day trial period with out mechanical oral hygiene measures was used to compare dental plaque

188 a professional prophylaxis, suspended normal oral hygiene measures, and rinsed twice daily for 1 minu

189 After 36 hours (T1), without mechanical oral hygiene measures, plaque and gingival indices were

190 temic inflammation through simple preventive oral hygiene measures.

191 Poor oral hygiene mediated the associations between psychosoc

192 egories as follows: behavioral alteration of oral hygiene methods, alteration of plaque composition,

193 Even with good oral hygiene, microbial communities accumulate on teeth

194 and consequences of periodontal diseases on oral hygiene motivation in patients with gingivitis.

195 cipants' motivation was determined using the Oral Hygiene Motivation Scale.

196 increased intrinsic motivation and improved oral hygiene of patients with gingivitis, especially reg

197 at days 7, 14, and 21, during stent-mediated oral hygiene (OH) abstention; and at day 42, after resum

198 The plaque index (PI) determining the oral hygiene (OH) status, periodontal clinical parameter

199 r (DH) was compared to placebo control (VC), oral hygiene (OH), and scaling and root planing (SRP) in

200 udies have noted a relationship between poor oral hygiene or periodontal bone loss and chronic obstru

201 significant improvements in all measures of oral hygiene over the 3-month study period.

202 of gingival/mucosal bleeding when performing oral hygiene (P = 0.026).

203 s phase; the second phase (5 months) was the oral hygiene phase, which included rinsing.

204 This may compromise the oral hygiene practice and alter the microbial flora of t

205 ehavioral and environmental factors, such as oral hygiene practice and smoking.

206 atment indicates a need for reinforcement of oral hygiene practices among these patients.

207 with diabetes, but the relationship between oral hygiene practices and A1c among youth with diabetes

208 We studied the relationship between oral hygiene practices and periodontitis, controlling fo

209 viewed about demographic characteristics and oral hygiene practices and were given a full-mouth perio

210 nited States which have inquired about their oral hygiene practices and whether they have professiona

211 Enhanced oral hygiene practices are necessary to reverse gingivit

212 Oral hygiene practices ceased for 21 days to induce ging

213 People who reported better oral hygiene practices did not report less periodontitis

214 ubjects lacking professional dental care and oral hygiene practices for >40 years.

215 or not taking (n = 16) OC refrained from all oral hygiene practices in one maxillary (test) quadrant

216 Although the improvement in oral hygiene practices in recent decades correlates with

217 bial counts, signifying a need for improving oral hygiene practices in these patients.

218 Few studies have assessed oral hygiene practices related to periodontitis.

219 Oral hygiene practices were determined by questionnaire,

220 Oral hygiene practices were not associated with periodon

221 ing a 28-day recovery phase, in which normal oral hygiene practices were resumed, subjects entered th

222 ite similar smoking histories, self-reported oral hygiene practices, and antibiotic use in the twin g

223 ernal self-report of oral symptoms/problems, oral hygiene practices, and/or dental service use before

224 Enhanced oral hygiene practices, including utilization of a denti

225 Self-reported oral health symptoms/problems, oral hygiene practices, or dental service use before or

226 Oral hygiene practices, socioeconomic and education stat

227 model) in which subjects refrained from all oral hygiene practices, thus permitting the accumulation

228 hat children with diabetes tend to have poor oral hygiene practices.

229 ts and evaluate socioeconomic conditions and oral hygiene practices.

230 l phase but with subjects maintaining normal oral hygiene practices.

231 and attitude to dental care utilization and oral hygiene practices.

232 nflammatory parameters after refraining from oral hygiene practices.

233 isease were treated with initial scaling and oral hygiene procedures in a private practice.

234 investigating the influence of adjuvants to oral hygiene procedures on the recurrence of periodontit

235 With oral hygiene procedures suspended, one barrier of each t

236 and the animals were allowed to heal without oral hygiene procedures.

237 tients were instructed to resume proper home oral hygiene procedures.

238 t, therefore, to understand how daily use of oral hygiene products impacts the microbiome.

239 Oral hygiene products were provided, together with instr

240 fresher education campaign, 2) chlorhexidine oral hygiene program, 3) chlorhexidine bathing, 4) cathe

241 ing mediators in GCF before and after EG via oral hygiene refrain.

242 tutes an effective adjunct to the simplified oral hygiene regimen that does not require unrealistic l

243 ebred beagle dogs were subjected to a 14-day oral hygiene regimen, consisting of manual scaling and d

244 patient was treated with antibiotics and an oral hygiene regimen.

245 limited on the potential effect of intensive oral hygiene regimens and periodontal therapy during pre

246 in stable provided that patients comply with oral hygiene regimens and regular supportive periodontal

247 or dental caries and thus require aggressive oral hygiene regimens and routine dental surveillance.

248 patients were seen quarterly for scaling and oral hygiene reinforcement.

249 iofilm lysine and cadaverine contents before oral hygiene restriction (OHR) and their association wit

250 During oral hygiene restriction (OHR), lysine decarboxylase (LD

251 sex, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, oral hygiene, risk factors for periodontitis and caries

252 tial treatment consisted of reinforcement of oral hygiene, scaling and root planing, chlorhexidine ri

253 es of restrictive eating diet and proxies of oral hygiene show relatively minor effects on the microb

254 Patients with good oral hygiene showed high radiographic bone stability.

255 Flossing, an important oral hygiene skill, is technique-sensitive and challengi

256 were tentatively significant with respect to oral hygiene skills.

257 lyze intervention effects on oral health and oral hygiene skills.

258 periodontal disease to provide education on oral hygiene, smoking, and DM.

259 Clinical recordings included oral hygiene standards and gingival health, recession de

260 arenting practices) had a negative effect on oral hygiene status (beta = 0.044; P = 0.07), and also h

261 ic status, presence of digit-sucking habits, oral hygiene status (OHS), and gingivitis among a group

262 Clinical examination of oral hygiene status and gingivitis was conducted using s

263 Despite comparable oral hygiene status and glycemic control between the two

264 In patients receiving implants, poor oral hygiene status and inadequate keratinized tissue le

265 the extent of gingival bleeding via a worse oral hygiene status of children, but SES was also import

266 is, the additive interaction between TBS and oral hygiene status was also analyzed.

267 Oral hygiene status was positively associated with the e

268 ated to periodontal disease independently of oral hygiene status.

269 plaque index was measured monthly to verify oral hygiene status.

270 l roles of oral health-related behaviors and oral hygiene status.

271 titis and has a synergistic effect with poor oral hygiene, suggesting monitoring decreased bone quali

272 ble risk factors for pneumonia (ie, impaired oral hygiene, swallowing difficulty) were enrolled.

273 After patients demonstrated acceptable oral hygiene, the lesions were surgically treated with c

274 Controlling for age, dietary intake, and oral hygiene, there was no association between GER sympt

275 hier lifestyle and continued improvements in oral hygiene throughout life appear to be the public hea

276 n and 5 months after treatment, and after no oral hygiene, tissue blocks of the mandible were taken f

277 erferes with function, speech, esthetics, or oral hygiene, tissue reduction can be accomplished by gi

278 and the need for enhanced support with daily oral hygiene to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

279 oot planing, and diminished effectiveness of oral hygiene to alter the subgingival microbiota.

280 KSL may be a useful adjunct for conventional oral hygiene to prevent plaque-mediated dental diseases.

281 ely after patients had been asked to perform oral hygiene to the best of their abilities.

282 the oral microbiome were observed with poor oral hygiene, tobacco smoking, and oral cancer.

283 influence of factors, such as smoking, poor oral hygiene, tooth mobility, and defect morphology, on

284 extraction, given the greater frequency for oral hygiene, toothbrushing may be a greater threat for

285 When coupled with aggressive oral hygiene treatment, this drug may provide a reasonab

286 ccording to accessibility for self-performed oral hygiene using a 0.5 mm interproximal brush.

287 periodontal health, superior effect of MI on oral hygiene was found in five trials and was absent in

288 Postoperative oral hygiene was obtained by spraying a 0.12% chlorhexid

289 of some of the defects and the fact that no oral hygiene was performed over the 5-month healing peri

290 ing, duration and treatment of diabetes, and oral hygiene was recorded using a questionnaire.

291 The patient's oral hygiene was similar for right and left sides of the

292 teeth only and when only patients with good oral hygiene were considered.

293 redictors of presence of gingivitis and poor oral hygiene were determined using multivariate logistic

294 4 weeks at which time recession and level of oral hygiene were measured.

295 nd capable of maintaining a high standard of oral hygiene were randomly allocated to one of four trea

296 gival interface [BGI] groups) abstained from oral hygiene while using an acrylic stent.

297 ts were instructed to supplement their daily oral hygiene with chlorohexidine oral rinse during the s

298 nd dental polishing (test group) compared to oral hygiene with supragingival instrumentation alone an

299 o difficulties in maintaining adequate daily oral hygiene within this vulnerable population.

300 dult lifestyle and continued improvements in oral hygiene would appear to be the public health interv