Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Hierarchizing caries risk factors among first-year university students in Nice (France): a cross-sectional study

BMC Oral HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:159

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0452-8

  • Received: 28 March 2017
  • Accepted: 10 December 2017
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to rank the risk factors for dental caries among first-year university students in Nice (France).

Methods

All first-year students are required to undergo a compulsory preventive medical examination. Among these students, volunteers were offered a dental visit. Information was collected through an interview followed by an oral examination. We assessed the volunteers’ oral hygiene habits (daily toothbrushing frequency, type of toothbrush used, frequency of toothbrush replacement, place of toothpaste purchase, and flossing), daily health-related behaviors (number of main daily meals, daily sugary intakes, smoking, alcohol consumption, consumption of cannabis or other drugs), oral-health-related behaviors (self-reported oral health, dental visits during the past year, reason for the last dental consultation, and failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons), and oral health issues (dental crowding, oral hygiene, presence of caries, presence of pit and fissure sealant remnants). The dependent variable was the presence of at least one untreated carious lesion. The data were subjected to univariate analyses to select explanatory variables, and subsequently, a logistic regression was performed.

Results

Six hundred twenty-nine students aged 18.8±1.6 years were enrolled in this study. The sex ratio was 0.72, with a strong predominance of the female gender. Only 59.3% of the students had never experienced dental caries, while 22.4% had already undergone restorative procedures and did not have any carious lesion at the time of the examination, and 11.6% presented with carious lesions and had never been treated by a dentist. Lastly, 6.7% had carious lesions despite evidence of prior restorative procedures. The multivariate analysis revealed the following pejorative risk factors: failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons (OR:3.06, 95% CI: 1.40–6.70), poor oral hygiene revealed during the oral examination (OR:2.59, 95% CI: 1.60–4.20), and poor self-reported oral health (OR:2.43, 95% CI: 1.24–4.77). Conversely, the analysis revealed the following protective factors: preventive visits to the dentist (OR:0.63, 95% CI: 0.41–0.99), the use of an electric toothbrush (OR:0.36, 95% CI: 0.17–0.77), and sealant remnants (OR:0.22, 95% CI: 0.05–0.97).

Conclusions

The highest-ranking caries risk factor for the study population was the financial barrier.

Keywords

  • Health-related behavior
  • Dental caries
  • First-year university students
  • Multivariate analysis

Background

In 2006, a French national report revealed that university students neglected their health [1]. These young adults think they are healthy and feel invulnerable. In general, they had poor dietary and oral hygiene habits and often failed to seek dental care. The report also noted risk behaviors, particularly smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and the daily use of certain drugs considered to be less dangerous than tobacco, particularly cannabis. Over the last 10 years, particular emphasis has been placed upon promoting a balanced diet and the prevention of risk behaviors in French universities.

In a review published in The Lancet by Selwitz et al. in 2007, caries risk assessment included physical, biological, environmental, behavioral, and lifestyle-related factors [2]. The individual caries risk can vary with time since many risk factors are changeable. Caries is related to one’s lifestyle, and behavioral factors under a person’s control are clearly implicated [36]. These factors include poor oral hygiene [79] and poor dietary habits [1013]. Other factors related to caries risk include socio-economic status [3, 5, 6], the use of dental sealants [14, 15], and dental crowding, which promotes plaque retention and increases the difficulty of maintaining good oral hygiene [16]. Besides, the relative caries preventive effects of fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations increase with higher fluoride concentration [17]. Though, in France, toothpastes sold in pharmacies need a special authorization (AMM) because the amount of fluorides is high (1500 ppm and more), and they are therefore considered as medicines. Because they are less fluoridated (1450 ppm and less), toothpastes in supermarkets are considered as hygiene products.

Numerous studies performed among undergraduate students have concerned dental students [18] but have less often studied the general university student population. However, dental students constitute a selected minority that is clearly demarcated from students of other disciplines regarding a higher awareness of self-reliant oral hygiene [18]. The DMFT score of undergraduate students has been the object of studies in various universities worldwide. Studies in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East show that the DMFT score of undergraduate students range from 4.1 ± 3.1 at Sana’a University in Yemen [19] to 3.9 ± 3.9 at San Luis Potosí University in Mexico [20], 2.9 ± 3.3 at Helsinki University in Finland [21], 2.0 ± 2.9 at Okayama University in Japan [22], and 1.2 ± 2.0 at Nice Sophia Antipolis University in France [23].

Low sugar consumption and good oral hygiene are critical for the prevention of caries and the maintenance of good oral health [24]. In Lebanon, 65% of undergraduate students reported brushing their teeth at least twice per day [25], while that percentage was 68% in Turkey [26], 74% in the USA [27], 87% in Japan [28], and 92% in Italy [29] and France [23]. Of subjects in Turkey, 91% reported never flossing versus 87% in Japan, 80% in France, 72% in Lebanon, 35% in Italy and 20% in the USA. Of the students in France and Italy, 62% and 60%, respectively, reported visiting a dentist during the previous year, while these percentages were only 31% in Lebanon and 30% in Turkey. High sugar consumption has long been linked to dental caries [30]. A quarter of USA Midwestern university students reported eating sugary foods (including foods and drinks, such as candies, soft drinks, juices, doughnuts, jellies, etc.) more than once daily. Among the 89% of students who reported drinking pop, 69% selected regular pop as their favorite as opposed to diet pop [27].

Smoking habits may also be associated with a higher risk of dental caries [31]. Self-reported use of tobacco among adolescents was significantly associated with an increased incidence of dental caries over a 3-year period [32]. This association was also apparent with alcohol [3335] and drug abuse [3638].

No data are available in France concerning the specific caries risk factors among university students. However, in France, university students often leave their family for the first time to study at a university that occasionally is far from home [39]. This assertion of autonomy may be particularly risky for their oral health. A national survey was conducted in Finland, and based on the university health department registries, an electronic questionnaire was sent to first-year students on their general, emotional, and oral health [40]. This survey revealed an increased risk of deterioration of oral health and thus a need for treatment in relation to poor habits regarding oral health and diet.

In France, all university students in their first 3 years of study are required to attend a preventive medical consultation [41]. In the Côte d’Azur University, this consultation takes place during the first year of study. A preventive dental consultation conducted by final-year dental students has also been implemented for more than 10 years. The purpose of this study was to rank the risk factors for dental caries among first-year university students.

Methods

Study population

A cross-sectional epidemiological study was conducted at the Côte d’Azur University. The study was approved by the University institutional review board (Commission de la Formation et de la Vie Universitaire). A previous study conducted on 4929 students of Nice-Sophia Antipolis University from 2009 to 2011 revealed that 43% of the students had at least one carious lesion [23]. The sample size calculation provided a number of at least 377 subjects for an absolute error of 5% and a type I error of 5%.

Investigators calibration

The investigators were ten final-year dental students who were previously trained to work in pairs. The questionnaire with closed questions was developed, and its use according to standardized modalities was validated for previous studies (Additional file 1) [23, 42, 43]. A very descriptive document was used to explain all of the recorded variables and the manner in which they should be coded. Sessions of tutorial classes were conducted by an experienced teacher to calibrate the operators to ensure that the interviews were led according to standardized modalities.

Our final-year dental students have a clinical experience of 2 years. Sessions of tutorial classes were also conducted to calibrate the operators. During these sessions, the inter- and intra-operator reliabilities (at a one-week interval) were assessed. Each operator was trained and became eligible for the study if all of the calculated Cohen kappa values (for qualitative variables) and intra-class correlation coefficients (for quantitative variables) exhibited minimum acceptable inter- and intra-operator agreement of more than 0.80.

Recruitment procedure

Participation in the study was proposed to all first-year undergraduate students who attended the medical examination in the first half of 2015. All students were eligible for the study with no exclusion criteria. After information on the objectives of the study was provided and the student’s consent was obtained, information was collected through an interview and an oral examination. The interview and oral examination were immediately conducted in the unit for medical examination in the university department of preventive medicine, which was adapted for this purpose.

Collected data

A closed room was equipped with a dentist chair to provide privacy for study participants. Appropriate dental lighting was a part of the unit. Disposable periodontal examination kits with a probe, mirror and cotton rolls were used, as were masks and disposable gloves. Data entry was anonymous, and no information in the electronic file could be used to identify the source person. The students were interviewed using standardized modalities and a questionnaire with closed questions about sociodemographic data that included the following: areas of study (Health and Sport, Science and Technology, Law and Economics, Management and Business, or Letters and Arts and Humanities), age, gender, social security coverage (French social security system, health mutual or supplementary universal health-care coverage, or other systems), father’s and mother’s professions (management profession, employees, or without employment), accommodation status (living with their parents or away from the parental home for at least part of the time), part-time jobs, diet-related behaviors (number of main daily meals; number of snacks between meals; daily consumption of sugary drinks, candies, sugar-free chewing gums; the drink consumed when thirsty, i.e., water or other drinks), oral hygiene habits (daily toothbrushing frequency, i.e., one, two or three times or not every day), type of toothbrush used (electric or manual), frequency of toothbrush replacement (at least every 3 months), place of toothpaste purchase (pharmacy or supermarket), flossing, addictive behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, consumption of cannabis or other drugs), oral health-related behaviors (self-reported oral health, i.e., good or poor health; dental visits during the past year; reason for the last dental consultation, i.e., preventive or curative; and failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons).

The oral examination assessed dental crowding by measuring the most crowded arch (no crowding between 0 and 2 mm, mild or moderate crowding between 2.1 and 7.0 mm, and severe crowding more than 7 mm) [44], periodontal status using the Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs (CPITN) (0: no signs of disease; 1: gingival bleeding after gentle probing; 2: presence of supra or subgingival calculus; 3: shallow pockets of 4–5 mm; and 4: pockets of 6 mm or more), oral hygiene using the Silness-Löe plaque index (0: no observable plaque; 1: a thin film of plaque detected at the gingival margin by running a probe across the tooth surfaces; 2: a moderate amount of plaque detected along the gingival margin with plaque visible clinically; and 3: heavy plaque accumulation detected at the gingival margin and in the interdental spaces), the calculus index (0: no observable calculus; 1: scattered calculus covering less than one-third of the buccal surface of the tooth; 2: calculus covering between one- and two-thirds of the buccal tooth surface with minimal subgingival calculus; and 3: calculus covering greater than two-thirds of the buccal tooth surface and extending subgingivally), the presence or absence of pit and fissure sealant remnants, the presence or absence of restorative care, and the DMFT index (decayed, missing, or filled teeth; only cavitated carious lesions were considered in this screening situation).

Statistical analysis

The risk factors were initially subjected to univariate analyses. The dependent variable was dichotomous (i.e., the presence or absence of at least one carious lesion at the time of the oral examination). The independent variables with more than two categories were dichotomized as follows for the statistical analyses: Health/Sport area of study vs others, father’s profession in management vs others, mother’s profession in management vs others, at least 3 main meals per day vs less than 3 main meals per day, at most one snack per day vs more than one snack per day, no daily soft drink consumption vs daily consumption, toothbrushing at least twice per day vs less than twice per day, daily alcohol consumption vs no daily consumption, and preventive reason for the last dental consultation vs curative or unknown reason. To determine which variables were significantly related to our variable of interest, each variable was examined separately from the others, and the chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test) was applied. The p value was set at 0.05.

A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors that predicted the development of carious lesions. Any independent variable that yielded a significant univariate test result at the level of 0.25 was selected as a candidate for the multivariate analysis. The major purpose of this technique was to quantify the strengths of the associations between the dependent variable and each of the independent variables (odds ratios) by accounting for the effects of the other model-integrated variables. The main advantage of this approach is the avoidance of confounding effects caused by analyzing the associations of all variables together. The forward stepwise likelihood ratio method for analyses was used.

Results

Six hundred twenty-nine students in their first year of study were enrolled in this study (Table 1). The average age was 18.8 ± 1.6 years. The sex ratio was 0.72, with a strong predominance of the female gender. The DMFT was 1.20 ± 2.07 (D = 0.43 ± 1.20; M = 0.02 ± 0.13; and F = 0.75 ± 1.63). Only 59.3% of the students had never experienced dental caries, while 22.4% had already undergone restorative procedures and did not have any carious lesions at the time of the examination, and 11.6% presented carious lesions and had never been treated by a dentist (Table 2). Lastly, 6.7% had carious lesions despite evidence of prior restorative procedures.
Table 1

Background factors, daily health-related behaviors and oral-health behaviors among the first-year students of Nice Côte d’Azur University

 

N

%

Gender

 Male

263

41.8

 Female

366

58.2

Area of study

 Health, Sport

275

43.7

 Science, Technology

91

14.5

 Law, Economics, Management, Business

163

25.9

 Letters, Arts and Humanities

100

15.9

Social security coverage

 French social security system

36

5.7

 French social security system + health mutual or supplementary universal  health-care coverage

588

93.5

 Other systems

5

0.8

Father’s profession

 Managing profession

313

49.8

 Employees

214

34.0

 Without employment

70

11.1

 Not documented or deceased

32

5.1

Mother’s profession

 Managing profession

202

32.1

 Employees

301

47.9

 Without employment

116

18.4

 Not documented or deceased

10

1.6

Accommodation

 Living with their parents

345

54.8

 Away from parental home at least a part of the time

284

45.2

Part-time job

 Yes

86

13.7

 No

543

86.3

Number of main daily meals

 One meal

12

1.9

 Two meals

167

26.6

 Three meals

446

70.9

 Four meals or more

4

0.6

Number of snacks between meals

 None

142

22.6

 One snack

368

58.5

 Two snacks or more

119

18.9

Daily consumption of sugar drinks

 None

298

47.4

 One drink

251

39.9

 Two drinks or more

80

12.7

Daily consumption of candies

 Yes

74

11.8

 No

555

88.2

Daily consumption of sugar-free chewing gums

 Yes

133

21.1

 No

496

78.9

Drink consumed when thirsty

 Water

483

76.8

 Other drink

146

23.2

Daily toothbrushing frequency

 One time

78

12.4

 Two times

446

70.9

 Three times

101

16.1

 Not every day

4

0.6

Type of toothbrush used

 Manual

530

84.3

 Electric

99

15.7

Toothbrush replacement at least every three months

 Yes

460

73.1

 No

169

26.9

Place of purchase of toothpaste

 Pharmacy

58

9.2

 Supermarket

490

77.9

 Not known

81

12.9

Flossing

 Yes

76

12.1

 No

553

87.9

Smoking

 Yes

162

25.8

 No

467

74.2

Cannabis consumption

 Yes

75

11.9

 No

554

88.1

Other drugs consumption

 Yes

17

2.7

 No

612

97.3

Alcohol consumption

 Never

226

35.9

 Occasional

388

61.7

 Daily

15

2.4

Self-reported oral health

 Good health

580

92.2

 Poor health

49

7.8

Dental visit during the past year

 Yes

369

58.7

 No

260

41.3

Reason for the last dental consultation

 Preventive

431

68.5

 Curative

167

26.6

 Not known

31

4.9

Failing to seek dental care due to financial reasons

 Yes

34

5.4

 No

595

94.6

Table 2

Oral examinations among first-year students of Nice Côte d’Azur University

 

N

%

Dental crowding

 No crowding

501

79.7

 Mild or moderate crowding

102

16.2

 Severe crowding

26

4.1

Periodontal status

 No signs of disease

482

76.6

 Gingival bleeding

66

10.5

 Supra- or subgingival calculus

80

12.7

 Shallow pockets

1

0.2

Poor oral hygiene (plaque and/or calculus)

 No

507

80.6

 Yes

122

19.4

Presence of at least one carious lesion

 No

514

81.7

 Yes

115

18.3

Presence of restorative care

 No

446

70.9

 Yes

183

29.1

Pit and fissure sealant remnants

 No

591

94.0

 Yes

38

6.0

Results of the univariate analyses and selection of the explanatory variables

The main variables associated with the presence of at least one carious lesion were the professional status of the mother, i.e., whether she had an intermediate professional position as opposed to being unemployed or having a higher professional position (p = 0.028); the use of an electric toothbrush (p = 0.010); the presence of sealant remnants (p = 0.030); a preventive visit to the dentist (p = 0.001); smoking (p = 0.033); drinking something other than water when thirsty during the day (p = 0.028); periodontal disease, even mild cases, revealed during the oral examination (p = 0.020); poor oral hygiene revealed by presence of dental plaque and/or calculus (p < 0.001); self-reported poor oral health (p < 0.001); and failing to seek care due to financial reasons (p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Table 3

Selection of the explanatory variables for inclusion in the logistic regression model (p < 0.25)

  

At least one active carious lesion (n)

Univariate

Analysis

NO

YES

P

Gender

Female

297

69

0.677

Male

217

46

Area of study

Health, Sport

222

53

0.604

Others

292

62

Father’s profession

Managing profession

264

49

0.099

Others

250

66

Mother’s profession

Managing profession

175

27

0.028a

Others

339

88

Accommodation

Living with their parents

285

60

0.536

Others

229

55

Part-time job

Yes

64

22

0.071

No

450

93

At least 3 main meals per day

Yes

375

75

0.109

No

139

40

At the most one snack per day

Yes

414

96

0.513

No

100

19

No daily soft drink consumption

Yes

253

45

0.063

No

261

70

Water consumption when thirsty

Yes

404

79

0.028a

No

110

36

Daily candy consumption

Yes

55

19

0.108

No

459

96

Daily sugar-free chewing gum consumption

Yes

102

31

0.101

No

412

84

Toothbrushing at least twice per day

Yes

447

100

1.000

No

67

15

Use of electric toothbrush

Yes

90

9

0.010a

No

424

106

Flossing

Yes

68

8

0.080

No

446

107

Toothbrush replacement at least every 3 months

Yes

380

80

0.353

No

134

35

Purchase of toothpaste at the pharmacy

Yes

49

9

0.721

No

465

106

Daily smoking

Yes

123

39

0.033a

No

391

76

Cannabis consumption

Yes

60

15

0.637

No

454

100

Another drugs consumption

Yes

12

5

0.214

No

502

110

Daily alcohol consumption

Yes

12

3

0.740

No

502

112

Presence of dental crowding

Yes

99

29

0.160

No

415

86

Periodontal disease, even mild

Yes

110

37

0.020a

No

404

78

Sealant remnants

Yes

36

2

0.030a

No

478

113

Presence of restorative care

Yes

141

42

0.055

No

373

73

Poor oral hygiene (plaque and/or calculus)

Yes

82

40

< 0.001a

No

432

75

Dental visit during the past year

Yes

305

64

0.466

No

209

51

 

Reason for last dental consultation

Preventive

367

64

0.001a

Other reason

147

51

Self-reported oral health

Good

486

94

< 0.001a

Bad

28

21

Failing to seek dental care due to financial reasons

Yes

19

15

< 0.001a

No

495

100

aSignificant

Ranking of the risk factors

A regression analyses model was designed with the possible explanatory factors from the socioeconomic data (father’s profession, mother’s profession, and part-time job), dietary habits (at least 3 main meals per day, no daily soft drink consumption, water consumption when thirsty, daily candy consumption, and daily sugar-free chewing gum consumption), oral hygiene habits (use of an electric toothbrush and flossing), addictive behaviors (daily smoking and drug consumption), oral health-related behaviors (reason for last dental consultation, self-reported oral health, and failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons) and clinical data (presence of dental crowding, periodontal disease (even mild), sealant remnants, presence of restorative care, and poor oral hygiene revealed by presence of dental plaque and/or calculus).

The multivariate analysis identified pejorative risk factors and ranked them as follows: failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons (OR:3.06, 95% CI: 1.40–6.70), poor oral hygiene revealed during the oral examination (OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.60–4.20), and poor self-reported oral health (OR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.24–4.77) (Table 4). Conversely, this study also highlighted and ranked the protective factors as follows: a preventive visit to the dentist (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41–0.99), the use of an electric toothbrush (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17–0.77), and the presence of pit and fissure sealant remnants (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.05–0.97).
Table 4

Results from the logistic regression analyses with the dependent variable “presence of at least one carious lesion”

Variables in the final equation

Sig.

Odds Ratio

95% CI

Lower

Upper

Use of an electric toothbrush

0.008

0.360

0.169

0.766

Last dental consultation for a preventive reason

0.045

0.634

0.406

0.990

Presence of sealant remnants

0.045

0.223

0.052

0.969

Poor oral hygiene

0.000

2.585

1.590

4.202

Failing to seek dental care due to financial reasons

0.005

3.060

1.397

6.700

Poor self-reported oral health

0.010

2.428

1.236

4.767

In the final equation, six independent variables remained and were ranked whereas fourteen were excluded: mother’s profession, father’s profession, part-time job, at least 3 main meals per day, no daily soft drink consumption, water consumption when thirsty, daily candy consumption, daily sugar free chewing gum consumption, daily smoking, drug consumption, flossing, presence of dental crowding, periodontal disease even mild, presence of restorative care

Discussion

The multivariate analysis made it possible to rank the risk factors for dental caries among the first-year university students of Nice in the first half of 2015. These risk factors were failure to seek dental care due to financial reasons followed by poor oral hygiene revealed during the oral examination and poor self-reported oral health.

In 2014, the Student Life Observatory published the results of a national survey about the living conditions of students in France [45]. Among other findings, this survey revealed that 11% of the students were not satisfied with their current health status and that 13% confessed to having already failed to seek medical care due to financial reasons. Many social assistance programs exist, for example, universal supplementary health coverage (CMUc [couverture maladie complémentaire universelle]) (free supplementary health coverage meant to facilitate access to healthcare for the low-income population with a stable and regular residence in France) and payment assistance for the supplementary health aid system (ACS [aide au paiement d’une complémentaire santé]) (aid that offers discounts on the premiums for supplementary health coverage for low-income populations with incomes slightly higher than the limit set for the allocation of CMUc). These programs make it possible to provide 100% dental coverage in France [46]. In 2015, a French national report revealed that 19.1% of students lived below the poverty line, i.e., less than 987 euros per month. The advance of dental fees can be perceived as unaffordable in this context [47].

The presence of dental plaque and/or calculus revealed during the oral examination can likely be more strongly attributed to the inadequate behavior of some students. Nevertheless, the French Union for Oral Health (UFSBD [Union Française pour la Santé Bucco-Dentaire]) issues good practice guidelines for the general public to ensure adequate oral hygiene. More specifically, this organization focuses on adults under the age of 40 and recommends at least two brushings per day, the use of fluoride toothpastes, the use of floss in the evening, a preventive visit to the dentist at least once per year, and the use of sugar-free chewing gums after each food intake [48].

The univariate analysis also highlighted the possible role of periodontal disease, even mild cases. Yet, gingivitis is often correlated with the presence of plaque, which is the consequence of a lack of brushing. Both periodontal status and poor oral hygiene were included in the multivariate logistic regression model, and only poor oral hygiene remained a proven risk factor. The main advantage of the multivariate analysis was thus to avoid confounding effects that arise by analyzing the associations of all variables together. Good practice guidelines are not sufficient to enhance a good oral hygiene for students. Actually, in France, there is no dental hygienist to educate patients in regard to diet and oral hygiene habits. Nevertheless, the success of the dental hygienist in the dental health education of patients has long been recognized in terms of influencing behavior [49]. A Swedish study revealed that patients’ attitudes were less negative towards dental hygienists than towards dentists [50]. This difference was more pronounced among students than general patients and patients with periodontal disease. Therefore, this specific population could greatly benefit from the introduction of dental hygienists in France.

The highest-ranking caries protective factor among the study population was the use of dental sealants, followed by the use of an electric toothbrush and a preventive visit to the dentist. Sealants are used and have been recommended in France since the early 2000s, and their efficacy is well documented [51]. The role played by the presence of sealant remnants is thus not surprising. Our results also confirmed recent studies that tend to prove the superiority of the use of electric brushing over manual brushing [52]. Preventive dental consultations remain rare in France despite institutional incentives. Since 2007 the “M’T dents” (love your teeth!) program has been offering all children aged 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 one free dental consultation and treatment, if necessary [53]. The purpose of this initiative was to develop the habit of preventively visiting the dentist. However, 41% of the students had not visited the dentist in the previous year. Moreover, the reason for the last dental appointment was preventive in only 69% of the cases.

The strengths of our study lie in supplying French data on a rarely studied population. The originality comes from the peer-led action among students. A study conducted in India focused primarily on dental students and revealed the positive attitude of this category of students towards their own oral health [54]. The authors mentioned the potential interest of a peer-driven prevention approach (dental students versus the students of other fields) to promote oral health on university campuses.

The limitations of our study arise from both the participation of only volunteer students and the cross-sectional design, which only provides a snapshot of our outcome at a specific point in time and provides no indication of the sequence of events. The oral examinations were performed in screening conditions, and an underestimation of the number of students affected by caries is possible. However, the use of recognized indices to estimate the dental caries status (i.e., the DMFT index), the oral hygiene (i.e., the plaque index and the calculus index) and the periodontal status (i.e., CPITN) likely limit these biases.

Conclusions

Students are known to neglect their oral hygiene and are particularly vulnerable to dental decay. The highest-ranking caries risk factor for the study population was the financial barrier.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

CPITN: 

Community periodontal index of treatment needs

DMFT: 

Decayed, missing or filled teeth

mm: 

millimeters

OR: 

Odd ratio

Sig.: 

Significance

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

This study received no specific grant from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agency.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

RC participated in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, drafted the manuscript and contributed to revising critically the manuscript. MFB contributed to conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data, helped to draft the manuscript and contributed to revising critically the manuscript. CC participated in the collection and interpretation of data, and contributed to revising critically the manuscript. LL conceived of the study, established the experimental design, performed the statistical analysis, participated in the analysis and interpretation of data, helped to draft the manuscript, and contributed to revising critically the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Authors’ information

RC: DDS, Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Université Côte d’Azur.

MFB: DDS, PhD, Professor, Head of the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics,

Université Côte d’Azur.

CC: DDS, Instructor, Department of Dental Public Health, Université Côte d’Azur.

LL: DDS, PhD, Professor, Head of the Department of Dental Public Health, Université Côte d’Azur.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the University institutional review board ([Commission de la Formation et de la Vie Universitaire]). The data were obtained from preventive medical consultations made in routine. Moreover, students were invited to voluntarily attend the dental exam. After information on the objectives of the study and verbal student’s consent, information was collected through an oral interview and an electronic input of the data. Data entry was anonymous and the gathered information in the electronic file does not permit to identify the source person.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Université Côte d’Azur, UFR Odontologie, 24 avenue des diables bleus, 06357 Nice cedex 4, France
(2)
Université Aix-Marseille, ADES, bd Pierre Dramard, 13334, Marseille cedex 15, France
(3)
Université Côte d’Azur, MICORALIS, 24 avenue des diables bleus, 06357 Nice cedex 4, France
(4)
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Pôle d’Odontologie, 5 Rue Dévoluy, 06000 Nice, France
(5)
UFR Odontologie, Pôle Universitaire Saint Jean d’Angély, 24 avenue des diables bleus, 06357 Nice cedex 4, France

References

  1. Commission des affaires culturelles, familiales et sociales. Rapport d'information en conclusion des travaux d'une mission d'information sur la santé et la protection sociale des étudiants n°3494. 2006. http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/rap-info/i3494.asp. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  2. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet. 2007;369:51–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hicks MJ, Flaitz CM. Epidemiology of dental caries in the pediatric and adolescent population: a review of past and current trends. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1993;18:43–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sakki TK, Knuuttila ML, Anttila SS. Lifestyle, gender and occupational status as determinants of dental health behavior. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:566–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson M. Risk assessment and epidemiology of dental caries: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:377–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Featherstone JD, Adair SM, Anderson MH, Berkowitz RJ, Bird WF, Crall JJ, et al. Caries management by risk assessment: consensus statement, April 2002. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2003;31:257–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellini HT, Arneberg P, von der Fehr FR. Oral hygiene and caries. A review Acta Odontol Scand. 1981;39:257–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mascarenhas AK. Oral hygiene as a risk indicator of enamel and dentin caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26:331–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Etty EJ, Henneberke M, Gruythuysen RJ, Wöltgens JH. Influence of oral hygiene on early enamel caries. Caries Res. 1994;28:132–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Marshall TA, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Warren JJ, Eichenberger-Gilmore JM, Burns TL, et al. Dental caries and beverage consumption in young children. Pediatrics. 2003;112:e184–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shenkin JD, Heller KE, Warren JJ, Marshall TA. Soft drink consumption and caries risk in children and adolescents. Gen Dent. 2003;51:30–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Moynihan P, Petersen PE. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of dental diseases. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7:201–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sheiham A, James WP. A new understanding of the relationship between sugars, dental caries and fluoride use: implications for limits on sugars consumption. Public Health Nutr. 2014;17:2176–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Deery C. Strong evidence for the effectiveness of resin based sealants. Evid Based Dent. 2013;14:69–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, et al. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD001830.Google Scholar
  16. Hafez HS, Shaarawy SM, Al-Sakiti AA, Mostafa YA. Dental crowding as a caries risk factor: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142:443–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Walsh T, Worthington HV, Glenny AM, Appelbe P, Marinho VC, Shi X. Fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD007868.Google Scholar
  18. Kirchhoff J, Filippi A. Comparison of oral health behavior among dental students, students of other disciplines, and fashion models in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J. 2015;125:1337–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Halboub E, Dhaifullah E, Yasin R. Determinants of dental health status and dental health behavior among Sana'a university students, Yemen. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013;4:257–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia-Cortes JO, Medina-Solis CE, Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Mejia-Cruz JA, Medina-Cerda E, Patino-Marin N, et al. Dental caries’ experience, prevalence and severity in Mexican adolescents and young adults. Rev Salud Publica. 2009;11:82–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Peltola JS, Ventä I, Haahtela S, Lakoma A, Ylipaavalniemi P, Turtola L. Dental and oral radiographic findings in first-year university students in 1982 and 2002 in Helsinki. Finland Acta Odontol Scand. 2006;64:42–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Yamane-Takeuchi M, Ekuni D, Mizutani S, Kataoka K, Taniguchi-Tabata A, Azuma T, et al. Associations among oral health-related quality of life, subjective symptoms, clinical status, and self-rated oral health in Japanese university students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16:127.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Ceinos R, Cucchi C, Bertrand MF, Lupi-Pegurier L. Caries experience and treatment needs among the students of nice - Sophia Antipolis university. Caries Res. 2014;48:398.Google Scholar
  24. Kunitomo M, Ekuni D, Mizutani S, Tomofuji T, Irie K, Azuma T, et al. Association between knowledge about comprehensive food education and increase in dental caries in Japanese university students: a prospective cohort study. Nutrients. 2016;8:114.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassak KM, Dagher R, Doughan B. Oral hygiene and lifestyle correlates among new undergraduate university students in Lebanon. J Am Coll Heal. 2001;50:15–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirtilogu T, Yavuz US. An assessment of oral self-care in the student population of a Turkish university. Public Health. 2006;120:953–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Luebke TE, Driskell JA. A group of Midwestern university students needs to improve their oral hygiene and sugar/pop consumption habits. Nutr Res. 2010;30:27–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kojima A, Ekuni D, Mizutani S, Furuta M, Irie K, Azuma T, et al. Relationships between self-rated oral health, subjective symptoms, oral health behavior and clinical conditions in Japanese university students: a cross-sectional survey at Okayama University. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Rimondini L, Zolfanelli B, Bernardi F, Bez C. Self-preventive oral behavior in an Italian university student population. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:207–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Walker AR, Cleaton-Jones PE. Sugar intake and dental caries. Br Dent J. 1992;172:7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Axelsson P, Paulander J, Lindhe J. Relationship between smoking and dental status in 35-, 50-, 65-, and 75-year-old individuals. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:297–305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmen A, Stromberg U, Magnusson K, Twetman S. Tobacco use and caries risk among adolescents – a longitudinal study in Sweden. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:31.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Harris C, Warnakulasuriya KA, Gelbier S, Johnson NW, Peters TJ. Oral and dental health in alcohol misusing patient. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1997;21:1707–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Dasanayake AP, Warnakulasuriya S, Harris CK, Cooper DJ, Peters TJ. Tooth decay in alcohol abusers compared to alcohol and drug abusers. Int J Dent. 2010;ID786503:1–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Priyanka K, Sudhir KM, Reddy VCS, Kumar RK, Srinivasulu G. Impact of alcohol dependency on oral health – a cross-sectional comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:ZC43–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Angelillo IF, Grasso GM, Sagliocco G, Villari P, D’Errico MM. Dental health in a group of drug addicts in Italy. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991;19:36–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shetty V, Mooney LJ, Zigler CM, Belin TR, Murphy D, Rawson R. The relationship between methamphetamine use and increased dental disease. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:307–18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Cury PR, Oliveira MG, de Andrade KM, de Freitas MD, Dos Santos JN. Dental health status in crack/cocaine-addicted men: a cross-sectional study. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2017;24:7585–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministère de l’Education Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche. Repères et Références Statistiques 2015 sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche. http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid92179/reperes-et-references-statistiques-edition-aout-2015.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.
  40. Pohjola V, Rekola A, Kunttu K, Virtanen JI. Association between dental fear and oral health habits and treatment need among university students in Finland: a national study. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16:26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Journal Officiel de la République Française. Decree no. 2008–1026 of October 7th, 2008 concerning the organization and the missions of the university and interuniversity services of preventive and health-promoting medicine. 2008. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019591463. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  42. Lupi-Pegurier L, Sionneau R, Bertrand MF, Moretti J, Bolla M, Muller-Bolla M. Oral health promotion through peer support among students in nice. J Dent Res. 2010;89:abstract 4638.Google Scholar
  43. Bertrand MF, Sionneau R, Muller-Bolla M, Bolla M, Lupi-Pegurier L. Three years of peer-led oral health promotion among students. J Dent Res. 2012;91:abstract 776.Google Scholar
  44. Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central Anatolia. Eur J Dent. 2007;1:125–31.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Observatoire National de la Vie Etudiante. National survey of living conditions 2013: the health of students. 2014. http://www.ove-national.education.fr/medias/OVEDonnees_sante_CDV2013.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  46. Assurance Maladie. CMUc universal supplementary health coverage. 2016. https://www.cmu.fr/cmu-complementaire.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.Google Scholar
  47. Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales. Evaluation de la 2ème année de mise en œuvre du plan pluriannuel contre la pauvreté et pour l’inclusion sociale. Rapport N°2014-049R. www.igas.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Rapport_2014-049R_TOME_I.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2017.
  48. Union Française pour la Santé Bucco-Dentaire. Recommendations of oral hygiene, adults of less than 40 years. 2016. http://www.ufsbd.fr/espace-grand-public/votre-sante-bucco-dentaire/adultes-de-moins-de-40-ans/. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.
  49. Uitenbroek DG, Schaub RM, Tromp JA, Kant JH. Dental hygienists’ influence on the patients’ knowledge, motivation, self-care, and perception of change. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1989;17:87–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ohrn K, Hakeberg M, Abrahamsson KH. Dental beliefs, patients’ specific attitudes towards dentists and dental hygienists: a comparative study. Int J Dent Hyg. 2008;6:205–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright JT, Tampi MP, Graham L, Estrich C, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Sealants for preventing and arresting pit-and-fissure occlusal caries in primary and permanent molars: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials-a report of the American dental association and the American Academy of pediatric dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147:631–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Yaacob M, Worthington HV, Deacon SA, Deery C, Walmsley A, Robinson PG, et al. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD002281.Google Scholar
  53. Assurance Maladie. The oral examination M'T dents. 2015. http://www.ameli.fr/assures/prevention-sante/les-examens-bucco-dentaires/l-examen-bucco-dentaire-m-t-dents.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2016.Google Scholar
  54. Mani PM, Swamy RM, Manjunath GN, Venkatesk G, Venkateshappa C, Kumar N. Attitude of dental students towards their oral health care. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2013;4:755–9.Google Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement