MEIR MORODOV
16 group
Knowledge and Oral Health Attitudes among
Parents of Children
Master’s Thesis
Supervisor : Dr. Sandra Žemgulytė.
!2 LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL ACADEMY FACULTY OF ODONTOLOGY
CLINIC FOR PREVENTIVE AND PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
Knowledge and Oral Health Attitudes among
Parents of Children
Master’s Thesis
The thesis was done
by student ... Supervisor ...
(signature) (signature)
... ...
(name surname, year, group) (degree, name surname)
... 20…. ... 20….
(day/month) (day/month)
EVALUATION TABLE OF CLINICAL–EXPERIMENTAL MASTER’S THESIS
Evaluation: ...
Reviewer: ...
(scientific degree, name and surname
Reviewing date: ...
Compliance with MT
No. MT parts MT evaluation aspects requirements and
evaluation Yes Partiall y No 1 Summary (0.5 point)
Is summary informative and in compliance with
the thesis content and requirements? 0.3 0.1 0 2 Are keywords in compliance with the thesis
essence? 0.2 0.1 0 3 Introductio n, aim and tasks (1 point)
Are the novelty, relevance and significance of the work justified in the introduction of the thesis?
0.4 0.2 0
4 Are the problem, hypothesis, aim and tasks
formed clearly and properly? 0.4 0.2 0
5 Are the aim and tasks interrelated? 0.2 0.1 0
6
Review of literature (1.5 points)
Is the author’s familiarization with the works of
other authors sufficient? 0.4 0.2 0
7
Have the most relevant researches of the scientists discussed properly and are the most important results and conclusions presented?
0.6 0.3 0
8 Is the reviewed scientific literature related
enough to the topic analysed in the thesis? 0.2 0.1 0
9 Is the author’s ability to analyse and systemize the scientific literature sufficient? 0.3 0.1 0
10
Material and methods (2 points)
IS the research methodology explained comprehensively? Is it suitable to achieve the set aim?
0.6 0.3 0
11
Are the samples and groups of respondents formed and described properly? Were the selection criteria suitable?
0.6 0.3 0
12
Are other research materials and tools (questionnaires, drugs, reagents, equipment, etc.) described properly?
!4 13
Are the statistical programmes used to analyse data, the formulas and criteria used to assess the level of statistical reliability described properly?
0.4 0.2 0
14 Results (2 points)
Do the research results answer to the set aim and
tasks comprehensively? 0.4 0.2 0
15 Does presentation of tables and pictures satisfy
the requirements? 0.4 0.2 0
16 Does information repeat in the tables, picture and text? 0 0.2 0.4
17 Is the statistical significance of data indicated?
0.4 0.2 0
18 Has the statistical analysis of data been
carried out properly? 0.4 0.2 0
19
Discussion (1.5 points)
Were the received results (their importance, drawbacks) and reliability of received results assessed properly?
0.4 0.2 0
20
Was the relation of the received results with the latest data of other researchers assessed properly?
0.4 0.2 0
21 Does author present the interpretation of results?
0.4 0.2 0
22
Do the data presented in other sections (introduction, review of literature, results) repeat?
0 0.2 0.3
23
Conclusions (0.5 points)
Do the conclusions reflect the topic, aim and
tasks of the Master’s thesis? 0.2 0.1 0
24
Are the conclusions based on the analysed material? Do they correspond to the research results?
0.2 0.1 0
25 Are the conclusions clear and laconic? 0.1 0.1 0
26
References (1 point)
Is the references list formed according to the
requirements? 0.4 0.2 0
27
Are the links of the references to the text correct? Are the literature sources cited correctly and precisely?
0.2 0.1 0
28 Is the scientific level of references suitable
29
Do the cited sources not older than 10 years old form at least 70% of sources, and the not older than 5 years – at least 40%?
0.2 0.1 0
Additional sections, which may increase the collected number of points
30 Annexes Do the presented annexes help to understand
the analysed topic? +0.2 +0.1 0
31
Practical recommendatio
ns
Are the practical recommendations suggested and are they related to the received results?
+0.4 +0.2 0
General requirements, non-compliance with which reduce the number of points
32
General requirements
Is the thesis volume sufficient (excluding annexes)? 15-20 pages (-2 points) <15 pages (-5 points) 33 Is the thesis volume increased
artificially?
-2 points
-1 point
34 Does the thesis structure satisfy the
requirements of Master’s thesis? -1 point -2 points
35
Is the thesis written in correct language, scientifically, logically and laconically?
-0.5 point -1 points
36 Are there any grammatical, style or computer literacy-related mistakes?
-2
points -1 points
37
Is text consistent, integral, and are the volumes of its structural parts balanced?
-0.2 point -0.5 points
38 Amount of plagiarism in the thesis. >20%
(not evaluated)
39
Is the content (names of sections and subsections and enumeration of pages) in compliance with the thesis
structure and aims? -0.2 point
-0.5 points
40
Are the names of the thesis parts in compliance with the text? Are the titles of sections and sub-sections distinguished logically and correctly?
-0.2 point -0.5 points
41 Was the permit of the Bioethical
!6
*Remark: the amount of collected points may exceed 10 points. Reviewer’s comments: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ ___________________________ Reviewer’s name and surname Reviewer’s signature 42
Are there explanations of the key terms and abbreviations (if needed)?
-0.2 point -0.5 points
43
Is the quality of the thesis typography (quality of printing, visual aids, binding) good?
-0.2 point -0.5 points
CONTENT
Summary ……….8
Introduction ………...…………9
Review of literature………...………...10
Subjects and methods.... ……….12
Results………...………13
Discussion………...………..…17
Conclusion ………....……….19
!8
Summary
Aim:To evaluate parent's attitude and knowledge about oral health of their children.
Material and methods: The participants were 94 parents with children between 1-9 years old. The
questionnaire consisted of 11 questions, which were related to the following items toothbrushing procedure and used measures for oral hygiene, frequency of toothbrushing, parent’s role during this procedure, sugar consumption patterns, parents' knowledge about relationship between general and oral health and fluoride necessity in toothpastes. The data was coded, computerised and
analysing by using SPSS 19 version. The level of significance was set at P<0.05.
Results: Mostly mothers (97.9%) filled the questionnaires. Toothbrushing with paste was the most
common method of oral hygiene (95.7%) in all age groups. Most of the children (51%) brushed the teeth once a day. Approximately a half (45.7%) of parents supervised and advised for children during tooth brushing procedure. 85.1% of the parents believed that sweets can affect child oral health, but candies consumption daily was the most frequent (68.1%). 69.1% of the parents believed that oral health affect general health. Most of the parents (85.1%) knew that regular dental visits are necessary. Most of the parents (66%) knew that fluoride is necessary.
Conclusion: Recommended twice-a-day tooth brushing was low among the interviewed parents’
Introduction
Children should enjoy a high standard of health, including oral health, but as children, they are dependent on adults for this [1].
Oral health is an essential component of general health and influences a person’s quality of life. Oral health behaviors play a central role in the prevention of many oral diseases.
Oral health related habits are established early in life. Tooth brushing should start when the first primary tooth erupts due to several reasons such as parental learning to brush teeth well for their infants and better toleration of infants [2,3].
Dental caries is the most common chronic disease of childhood and may affect a child’s quality of life due to various factors including pain, infection, sleep loss, absence from school with
compromised education, poor mastication, compromised appearance, inadequate nutrition, growth and development. In industrialized countries, dental caries remains a significant public health problem. Dental caries is a disease that generally is preventable by primary oral care measures, whereas dental treatment of carious primary teeth in children is expensive with further dental treatment being subsequently required in many young children who have had comprehensive dental treatment provided [4].
Dental caries or its treatment in the primary dentition is a strong predictor for future development of dental caries in the primary, mixed and permanent dentitions. It is therefore recommended that parents and parents-to-be should be informed, encouraged and hopefully motivated to prevent the development of dental caries in their infants and young children [5].
Untreated dental can have serious impact on individuals, such as pain, discomfort, social and functional limitations, which ultimately can impair oral health-related quality of life [6].
Hypothesis
We expect that parent's attitude and knowledge about oral health of their children will be good due to accessible information via different sources about importance of regular toothbrushing, healthy diet, oral health for general children health.
!10
Objectives:
1. To prepare a questionnaire. 2. To collect and analyze the data. 3. To present the results of data findings.
4. To compare the differences of answers between small families (3 or less) and large families (are families in which are four or more children.).
5. To analyze articles and publications related with this topic, and compare the results of accomplished study with others.
Review of literature
The reduction in caries or prevention of caries development is most likely result of the protection fluoride provides and more effective plaque removal by parents [7,8]. However, a high percentage of parents usually do not pay attention to their offspring’s oral hygiene and tent to overestimate the quality of tooth brushing when it is performed by children themselves. Low parental awareness can be as an important indicator of child’s poor oral hygiene [9]. Effective tooth brushing requires something more than knowing, or being told, thus it is more important to show, explain, supervise and check quality of tooth brushing. Furthermore, frequency matters as well, because brushing teeth more than once a day, versus less often, reduces the occurrence of caries. Regarding the results of carried out study by Adair et al, the best predictor of being caries free was parents’ perceived skill to carry out tooth brushing as part of their child’s daily routines [10].Moreover, children with visible plaque at 12 months are more likely to have dental caries at 3 years old of age compared with those who were plaque free [11,12].
Oral hygiene measures should be implemented no later than the time of eruption of the first
primary tooth. Tooth-brushing should be performed for children by a parent twice daily, using a soft toothbrush of age-appropriate size and the correct amount of fluoridated toothpaste. Moreover, it is recommended that toothbrushing should take place last thing at night before bedtime and on at least one other occasion during the day. The duration of toothbrushing should exceed 1 min on each occasion, and eating directly after brushing should be avoided [13].
erupts. Toothpastes that contain fluoride in the range 1000 to 1500 ppmF are effective but because of the small size of an infant and very young child, it is important that the paste is not ingested as this could put the developing teeth, including the permanent anterior teeth, at risk of fluorosis [14]. UK guidelines recommend that from the age of primary tooth eruption (approximately 6 months old) up to the age of 7 years old, parents should supervise their child’s toothbrushing, known as parental-supervised toothbrushing (PSB) [14,15,16]. Furthermore, a 50 % of 5-year-olds in the UK brush their teeth without supervision [7].
Moreover, children who are under seven year old usually do not have proper manual ability to brush their teeth without parents or caregivers supervision [17].
It is recommended that the child’s first dental visit should be at approximately 12 months of age. A ‘baby visit’ is a happy occasion in a dental practice with all staff naturally delighted to see a little infant attend for an oral examination [5].
Regular dental attendance might have a significant influence on the uptake of preventive measures related to oral hygiene and diet by increasing parental education and awareness of oral disease and its prevention [18]. Moreover, regular dental visits allow early detection and better caries treatment and raise parental awareness of the causes and prevention of oral diseases as well [19].
!12
Subjects and methods.
The participants were parents with children between 0-9 years old. Children regarding to age were grouped into 3 following groups 0-2.5 years old, 3-5.5 years old and 6-9 years old, respectively. These groups were based on teeth eruption periods (1st- until all primary teeth erupt, 2nd – primary
dentition period, 3rd – period of mixed dentition).
The questionnaire consisted of 11 questions about oral health behavior, knowledge and attitude. 3 items were related to toothbrushing procedure and asked about used measures ( options were: toothpaste and toothbrush, mouthwash, toothpick or others) for oral hygiene and frequency of toothbrushing (once a day(evening or morning), twice a day or rarer than once a day) and parent’s role during this procedure (options were that parents brush children teeth, supervise and give advices, only give advices, and don’t participate).
2 questions were related to sugar consumption patterns (frequency and parents opinion does sweets affect oral health).
2 questions were related to parent knowledge and asked about relationship between general and oral health and fluoride necessity in toothpastes.
3 items were about dental visits (frequency, importance of regular visits and reason for last dental visit).
Results
In this survey 94 parents answered to the questionnaires. Response rate was 100%.
Age of children varied from 1 year old till 9 years old. Distribution regarding to age was the following: the smallest groups were 1, 2 and 9 year old children and prevalence was only 2.2%, 6.4% and 3.2%, respectively. 10.7% were of both 3 and 5 year old children, 4year old was 14.9%, 7 year old- 13.9. The most prevalent age groups were 6 and 8 year old children and they took up 20.2% and 18.1%, respectively (Table 1). Thus the mean of children age was 5.56 (±2.02) years (median 6.0 years).
Families with one, four, five and six children were not common and consisted 8.5%, 11.7%, 5.3% and 2.1%, respectively. Families with two or three children were more prevalent in this survey and took up 26.6% and 45.7%, respectively (Table 1). The mean of children number in family was 2.85 (±1.06), while median was 3.0.
Mostly mothers (97.9%) filled the questionnaires, whereas only 2 fathers filled the questionnaire (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants
Percentage (%) Frequency (N)
Age of child (year)
2.2 2 1 6.4 6 2 10.7 10 3 14.9 14 4 10.6 10 5 20.2 19 6 13.9 13 7 18.1 17 8 3.2 3 9
Number of the children in the family
8.5 8 1 26.6 25 2 45.7 43 3 11.7 11 4 5.3 5 5 2.1 2 6
Who filled questionnaire
!14 The results of answers are presented in Table2. Tooth brush and paste was the most common method of oral hygiene (95.7%) in all age groups, meanwhile only 1.1% of participants answered that use mouthwash and 3.2% use tooth picks (p=0.005)
Most of the children (51%) brushed the teeth once a day, while 45.7 % brushed twice a day and 3.2% answered that brush less them once a day. There were no a significant difference among all age groups (p=0.590) and number of children in family as well (p=0.502).
Approximately a half (45.7%) of parents supervised and advised for children during tooth brushing procedure. Meanwhile 28.7% of parents were brushing children teeth, 17% of parents gave only advices and 8.5% did not participate in children tooth brushing.
85.1% of the parents believed that sweets can affect child oral health.
11.7% thought that sweets couldn't affect child oral health and 3.2 % didn't have opinion about this item.
Most of the parents (69.1%) paid attention to teeth appearance, but a quarter (25.5%) of parents did not pay attention to teeth appearance and 5.4 % did not have opinion.
69.1% of the parents believed that oral health affect general health, while 26.6% of participants were thinking that oral health cannot affect on general health and 4.3% did not know.
The most common reason for dental visit were regular check-up (44.7%).But 37.2% of participants visited the dentist when pain already existed and 18.1% occasionally.
Most of the parents (85.1%) knew that regular dental visits are necessary.
11.7% believed that is not necessary to visit a dentist regularly and 3.2% did not have an opinion. Toothache was the most prevalent reason of last dental visit (37.2%).
Parents’ advice was the second most common intention to visit dentist (29.8%). Other reason was 19.1% of answers. Surprisingly, the rarest reason was dentist advice (13.8%).
Candies consumption everyday was the most frequent (68.1%). Candies consumption twice in week was 21.3% and only once in a week was 10.6%.
Table2. Distribution of answered items.
Frequency (N) Percentage (%) *Methods of oral hygiene
Toothbrush and paste 90 95.7
Mouthwash 1 1.1
Tooth picks 3 3.2
*Time of toothbrushing
Once a day 48 51
Twice a day 43 45.7
Less than once a day 3 3.2
*Parents role in children tooth brushing
Parents brush children teeth 27 28.7
Parents supervise and advice 43 45.7
Parents only give advices 16 17.0
Do not participate 8 8.5
*Sweets affect oral health
Yes 80 85.1
No 11 11.7
Do not know 3 3.2
*Paid attention to teeth appearance
Yes 65 69.1
No 24 25.5
Do not know 5 5.4
*Does oral health affect general health
Yes 65 69.1
No 25 26.6
Do not know 4 4.3
*Frequency of visiting the dentist
Regularly 42 44.7
When is pain 35 37.2
Occasionally 17 18.1
*Are regular dental visits necessary
Yes 80 85.1
No 11 11.7
!16 The results showed that the significant differences were between used oral hygiene methods and age’s groups (p=0.05). Most of parents reported tooth brushing with paste in all age groups. This statistically significant difference might be due to different size of groups. There was no statistically significant difference between frequency of tooth brushing and age of children (p=0.846).
Furthermore, surprisingly a statistically significant difference was not found between age of child and parents opinion about necessary of fluoride in tooth pastes (p=0.590). Moreover, there was no significant difference between age of child and frequency of candies intake (p=0.590) (Table 3).
Table 3. Relationship between age groups and used oral hygiene methods, frequency of toothbrushing and sweets consumption and fluoride using.
*Reason of last dental visit
Toothache 35 37.2
Parents advice 28 29.8
Dentist advice 13 13.8
Other reason 18 19.1
*Candies’ consumption frequency
Daily 64 68.1 Twice in week 20 21.3 Once in a week 10 10.6 *Fluoride is necessary Yes 62 66.0 No 14 14.9 Don’t know 18 19.1
Age groups 0-2.5 3-5.5 6-9 p- value
(N)(%) (N)(%) (N)(%)
Oral hygiene methods
Toothbrush + paste 6 (6.4) 33 (35.1) 51 (54.3)
0.05
Mouthwash 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1)
Toothpicks 2(2.1) 1 (1) 0 (0)
Frequency of tooth brushing
Once a day 3(3.2) 18(19.1) 27(28.7)
P-value- Pearson chi square test was used.
Discussion
This study has some limitations. No oral examination was performed to evaluate oral health status and quality of tooth brushing. Furthermore, the sample of this survey was not representative. There are several types such as traditional and modern families in Israel. The modern family is the most common in Israel today and consists of parents of 2-3 children. The traditional family has grown over the years and consists of parents and an average of seven children. The area that survey was carried out, modern families were prevalent, but still parent from traditional family participated as well. According to the results, no statistically significant differences were found in oral health behavior between modern and traditional families.
In 2014, Water Regulations ended and the obligation to fluoridate water in Israel came into force. The main points of the Dental Health Promotion Program formulated by Ministry of Health experts as an alternative to mandatory fluoridation the action focused upon populations that were at
elevated risk for dental caries [22].
Guidelines were refreshed in respect of the need for dental health education for all professionals; at student health services in schools and dental health services in schools, in parallel with guidelines to kindergarten teachers and school teachers in the education system.
Twice a day 4(4.3) 15(16) 24(25.5) 0.846
Less than one a day
1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1)
Fluoride necessary in tooth paste.
Yes 4(4.3) 23(24.5) 35(37.2)
0.590
No 2(2.1) 4 (4.3) 8 (8.5)
Don’t know 2(2.1) 7 (7.4) 9 (9.6)
Frequency of candies consumption
!18 In the Israel the main guidelines are almost similar like in many other countries: brushing teeth twice per day with toothpaste that contains fluoride.
The extension of free education to young preschool ages enables the implementation of health promotion in an organized educational framework. The ages of the final year of preschool are included in student dental health services, and receive dental health education.
The proposed program for this age group is brushing of teeth, under the supervision of the
kindergarten teachers at kindergarten, using toothpaste that contains fluoride. Such programs have been scientifically evaluated, and found to be effective in preventing caries.
In India Suvarna et al. assessed the knowledge and oral health attitudes among parents of children with congenital heart diseases and used partially the same questionnaire like in this study.
Meanwhile, results of this survey showed that more children brushed teeth with toothbrush and tooth paste than in Suvarna accomplished one (95.7% vs. 87.4%), whereas more parents supervised and gave advises during children tooth brushing procedure in study carried put in India (82.75% vs. 45.7%), more children brushed teeth twice a day as well (56.3% vs.45.7%) than in Israel [23]. De Silva-Sanigorski et al. investigated parental oral health related knowledge and self-efficacy in Australia; and results showed level of parental knowledge was high, because over 90% of parents were aware of the cariogenic role of sugar, importance of tooth brushing, plaque [24]. Moreover, Ashkanani at al. carried out the survey to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of caregivers in Kuwait in relation to the oral health of preschool children. Results showed that 91.3% of
participants answered correctly to the questions about food cariogenicity and the importance of fluorides in caries prevention, whereas in this study only 66% of parents agreed that fluoride is necessary in toothpastes and 85.1% knew that sweets intake have an influence on status of oral health [25].
Conclusion:
Recommended twice-a-day tooth brushing was low among the interviewed parents’ children. Although parents agreed that sweet consumption can have a negative influence on general health, but a high number of children consumed sugar products daily. Furthermore, even parents agreed that regular dental visits are very important, the most common reason of dental visit was
toothache. More emphasis ought to be put on oral health promotion and prevention of oral diseases among parents.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the Dr. Sandra Žemgulytė for her assistance from Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Clinic for preventive and paediatric clinic.
Practical recommendations
!20
References
1. World Health Organization. Basic documents. 39th ed. Geneva: WHO; 1992.
2. Mattila ML, Rautava P, Sillanpaa M, Paunio P. Caries in five-year-old children and associations with family-related factors. J Dent Res. 2000; 79:875.
3. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on fluoride therapy. 2013 Available at: http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_FluorideTherapy.pdf.
4. Twetman S, Dhar V. Evidence of effectiveness of current therapies to prevent and treat early childhood caries. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37:246–53.
5. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on periodicity of examination, preventive dental services, anticipatory guidance/counseling, and oral treatment for infants, children and adolescents. Reference Manual. 2014/2015; 36;6
6. Peres MA, Sheiham A, Liu P, Demarco FF, Silva AER, Assuncao MC. Sugar consumption and changes in dental caries from childhood to adolescence. J Dent Res 2016: 95(4):388-394.
7. White DA, Chadwick BL, Nuttall NM, Chestnutt IG, Steele JG. Oral health habits amongst children in the United Kingdom in 2003. Br Dent J. 2006; 200(9):487–91.
8. Broadbent JM, Thomson M, Boyens JV, Poulton R. Dental plaque and oral health during the first 32 years of life. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(4):415–26.
9. Shaghaghian S, Savadi N, Amin M. Evaluation of parental awareness regarding their child‘s oral hygiene. Int J Dent Hygiene. 2016, doi: 10.1111/idh.12221.
10. Adair PM, Pine CM, Burnside G, et al. Familial and cultural perceptions and beliefs of oral hygiene and dietary practices among ethnically and socio-economically diverse groups. Community Dent Health. 2004; 21(1):102.
11. Schroder U, Granaih L: Dietary habits and oral hygiene as predictors of caries in 3-year-old children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983; 11: 308-11.
12. Wendt LK, Hallonsten AL, Koch G, Birkhed D. Oral hygiene in relation to caries development and immigrant status in infants and todlers. Scand J Dent Res 1994;102:269–73.
13. EAPD. Guidelines on the use of fluoride in children: an EAPD policy document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10:129–35.
15. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on early childhood caries (ECC): classifications, consequences, and preventive strategies. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(7):40–3. 16. SDCEP. Prevention and management of dental caries in children. Dundee. 2010.
17. Lourenço CB, Saintrain MV, Vieira AP. Child, neglect and oral health. BMC Pediatr. 2013. 18;13:188.
18. Kuhner MK, Raetzke PB. The effect of health beliefs on the compliance of periodontal patients with oral hygiene instructions. J Periodontol 1989;60(1):51-56.
19.Lewis CW, Grossman DC, Domoto PK, et al. The role of the pediatrician in the oral health of children: A national survey. Pediatrics 2000;106(6):E84.
20. Habibian M, Roberts G, Lawson M, Stevenson R, Harris S. Dietary habits and dental health over the first 18 months of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001; 29: 239–46.
21. Sheiham A, Watt RG The common risk factor approach: a rational basis for promoting oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28(6):399-406.
22.https://www.health.gov.il/english/news_and_events/spokespersons_messages/pages/ 17082014_1.aspx
23. Suvarna R, Rai K, Hegde AM. Knowledge and oral health attitudes among parents of children with congenital heart diseases. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;4(1):25-8.
24. De silva-Sanigorski A, Ashbolt R, Green J, Calache H, Keith B, Riggs E. Perental self-efficacy and oral health-related knowledge are associated with parents and child oral health behaviors and self-reported oral health status. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013, 41:345-352.
25. Ashkanani F, Al-Sane M. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of caregivers in relation to oral health of preschool children. Med Princ Pract 2013;22:167-172.
26. Lenčová E, Dušková J. Oral health attitudes and caries-preventive behaviour of Czech parents of preschool children. Acta Med Acad. 2013;42(2):209-15.
!22 EVALUATION FORM OF THE MASTER’S THESIS
FOR THE MEMBER OF DEFENCE COMMITTEE Graduate student ___________________________________________________________________, of the year ______, and the group _____ of the integrated study programme of Odontology
Master’s Thesis title: ………...……….………...………… ………...….………...……...
Remarks of the member of evaluation committee of Master’s Thesis
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Evaluation of the Master’s Thesis
_____________________________________________________________________________
Member of the MT evaluation committee:
________________ ___________________________ _____________________
(scientific degree) (name and surname) (signature)
No. MT evaluation aspects Evaluation
Yes Partially No 1 Has the student’s presentation lasted for more than 10 minutes?
2 Has the student presented the main problem of the Master’s thesis, its aim and tasks? 3 Has the student provided information on research methodology and main research instruments? 4 Has the student presented the received results comprehensively?
5 Have the visual aids been informative and easy to understand? 6 Has the logical sequence of report been observed?
7 Have the conclusions been presented? Are they resulting from the results? 8 Have the practical recommendations been presented?
