Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

General anxiety, dental anxiety, digit sucking, caries and oral hygiene status of children resident in a semi-urban population in Nigeria

  • 1, 2, 3Email author,
  • 1, 2, 3,
  • 2, 3,
  • 2, 3,
  • 2, 3 and
  • 2, 3
BMC Oral HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201818:66

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0529-z

  • Received: 12 January 2018
  • Accepted: 12 April 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Digit sucking can represent untreated anxiety or other emotional problems. The aim of this study was to determine if digit sucking is a predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety; and if general and dental anxiety are associated with caries and oral hygiene status of children resident in sub-urban Nigeria.

Methods

This was a secondary data analysis of a household survey conducted in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. The level of general anxiety and dental anxiety of 450 6 to12 year old children were measured using the Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale and Dental Subscale of the Child Fear Survey Schedule respectively. Presence of digit sucking habit, caries and oral hygiene status were determined. General anxiety and dental anxiety scores were dichotomized into low and high levels respectively. Logistic regression was conducted to determine if digit sucking was a predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety; and if general anxiety and dental anxiety were predictors caries and good oral hygiene status. Adjustments were made for age and sex.

Results

Digit sucking is not a significant predictor of dental anxiety (p = 0.99) and general anxiety (p = 0.79). Children with high general anxiety (AOR: 5.02; 95% CI: 2.9–9.74; p <  0.001) and high dental anxiety (AOR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.15–2.65; p = 0.009) had higher odds of having caries and good oral hygiene respectively.

Conclusion

Digit sucking was not a significant predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety. General and dental anxiety however, had effects on the likelihood of having caries and good oral hygiene.

Keywords

  • Anxiety
  • General
  • Dental
  • Caries
  • Oral hygiene
  • Children
  • Nigeria

Background

Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) habits are common oral habits, observed in children and in some adults. Digit sucking and nail biting are referred to as nervous NNS habits [1]. These habits are prevalent in normally developing preschool children, and they reflect the state of the mood [1]. Some suggested etiological factors for nail biting include anxiety, stress, loneliness, imitation of others, heredity and inactivity [2]. Nail biting is considered a transitional behavior from thumb sucking [2].

Digit sucking is a normal behavior for young children because they are born with a natural sucking instinct [3]. For most infants, this instinct can last up to the sixth month of life, while for some sucking the habit can continue beyond the sixth month of life when it becomes a soothing and comforting behavior for scared, hungry, sleepy, bored or anxious children [3]. When the habit persists beyond 4 years of age, it can represent untreated anxiety or other emotional problems [4].

General anxiety has been well linked to dental anxiety. Winer [5] suggested that dental fear in children might not be a specific form of fear, but instead may reflect general fear, as there is usually a decline in the prevalence of both general and dental fear with age: the same kind of decline observed with thumb sucking. Klingberg [6] therefore, suggested that children predisposed to general fears should be regarded as having a potential risk of developing dental fear. However, Neverlien [7] found no direct associations between general fear and self-reported dental anxiety, though there was a significant correlation between these two factors for girls who showed signs of clinical anxiety. Folayan et al. [8] however, showed a significant but moderate correlation between dental anxiety and general anxiety.

While Tyron [9] concluded there was no relationship between digit sucking and general anxiety [9], Mahalski and Stanton [10] demonstrated such a relationship through a 5 year longitudinal study. The link between digit sucking and dental anxiety has however not been demonstrated. There is a possibility for such link since prior studies had shown an association between general anxiety and dental anxiety [5, 6, 8]; and an association between digit sucking, other NNS habits and general anxiety [10]. This study will therefore determine if digit sucking is a predictor of dental and general anxiety in children.

Digit sucking has deleterious effects on the oral health of children older than 4 years [11, 12]. Shimura et al. [13] had highlighted the role of emotional stress and the associated psychosomatic responses as a predisposing factor for caries. The association between dental anxiety and poor oral hygiene in adults has also been highlighted [1416]. We authors found no information in the dental literature on general and dental anxiety being predictors of caries and oral hygiene status in children. Though de Carvalho et al. [17] demonstrated a correlation between dental anxiety oral hygiene frequency and caries, their target population were adolescents not children. This study will therefore, also determine if general anxiety and dental anxiety are associated with caries and oral hygiene status of children resident in sub-urban Nigeria.

Method

This study retrieved the data of children 6 to 12 years old from the data of a larger study conducted to explore the relationship between non-nutritive oral habits and caries [18]. The primary study was a cross sectional study utilising a household survey for study participants’ recruitment. A household survey was conducted in order to recruit a representative sample of children from the community since 40.0% of primary school aged children and 60.0% of secondary school aged children are out of school [19].

Study setting

The study was conducted in Ife Central Local Government area of Osun State, a semi-urban area. Ife Central was chosen as the study location due to its proximity to the Obafemi Awolowo University and the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, the host institutions of the authors.

Participants were recruited from the National Population Enumeration sites in the Local Government Area. The Enumeration sites were the same used for the 2010 National Antenatal Sero-sentinel Survey [20] and the 2012 National Adolescent Reproductive Health Survey [21]. These study sites were selected because it was assumed that participants in these geographical sites may have been familiar with the conduct of such surveys and thus, be more open to discussing with the field workers.

Study population

The study population for the primary study included 1–7 year old children whose parents gave consent for study participation, and 8–12 year old children who gave assent for study participation in addition to parental consent. Only children who were living with their biological parents or legal guardians and who were at home at the time of data collection were included in the study. The lower age limit for study participants was fixed at 6 years because some of the study tools were designed to collect data for children 6 years and above. The children included in the study were therefore those with in the age-range of children with mixed dentition.

Sample size

Sample size for the primary study as calculated using Leslie Fischer’s formula [22] for study population > 10,000. A previous study [23] reported a prevalence of 34.1% for oral habits in 4–15 year old Nigerian children. Based on a prevalence of 34.1%, it was found that it would be necessary to examine 1011 children to capture 345 children with oral habits, with a fall out rate of 10%.

Sampling technique

The sampling procedure used a multi-stage cluster sampling method to select eligible persons. First, there was the random selection of enumeration areas within the Local Government Area. Next, every third household on each street at the enumeration areas was identified for study participant recruitment. In each household, eligible individuals were listed and one eligible child randomly selected for study participation using balloting.

Study procedure

Experienced trained field workers administered a structured questionnaire developed in English to collect data for the study using an approach had had been used successfully for prior studies conducted in multi-lingual communities in Nigeria [2429].

The field workers collected information from the respondent and submitted the completed questionnaires to the survey supervisor daily. The supervisor reviewed all filled questionnaires and raised queries where gaps were identified in the filled questionnaire, or the consenting process. The queries were addressed latest by the next day by the field worker where this was feasible. This may involve returning to the household to collect missing data or the need to entire essential documentation details in the filled questionnaires.

The questionnaires assessing dental anxiety and general anxiety were only administered to children 6–12 years old. The questionnaires were filled by the mothers of children 6–7 years and by children 8–12 years. Mothers were requested to fill the questionnaire on behalf of their children because prior studies conducted in the same environment showed that the correlation between child’s general and dental anxiety level best correlated with the mother’s assessment of these situations when compared to correlation with the father’s assessment [8]. Dental and general anxiety levels were classified as high or low using the cut off established for the study population by Folayan et al. [8]. However, where the mother was unavailable, fathers completed the questionnaires.

Data collection tools

The questionnaire asked for details on the child’s socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex), if digit sucking habit was present, general anxiety and dental anxiety (Sections 1, 3, 18 and 19 of the Additional file 1 respectively). Details of the child’s medical and dental history which explored possible medical and dental health issues that could interfere with oral health were also collected (Section 17 of the Additional file 1). Any child who had any form of cognitive impairment was excluded from the study.

General anxiety

The Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS) [30] was used to measure level and nature of self-reported trait anxiety. The instrument had been used on prior studies conducted among children in Nigeria [31, 32] and its reliability for use among school children in Nigeria determined [19]. Cross-cultural validity of the tool had also been determined [33]. It consists of 28 anxiety items and 9 lie (social desirability) yes-or-no items. A response of “Yes” indicates that the item is descriptive of the subject’s feelings or actions, whereas a response of “No” indicates that the item is generally not descriptive. Scores are provided for total anxiety and four sub-scales namely the 10 item physiological anxiety scale, the 11 item worry/oversensitivity scale, the 7 item social concerns/concentration scale, and the 9 item lie scale. The possible total score ranged from 0 to 37. Scores were derived from affirmative responses. A high score indicates a high level of anxiety or lie [23]. A prior study had used a cut-off point of 19 to identify children experiencing clinically significant levels of anxiety [33]. For this study, children with scores 19 and below were categorized as having low general anxiety and those with scores above 19 were categorized as having high trait anxiety.

Dental anxiety

The dental anxiety of each child was assessed using Dental Subscale of the Child Fear Survey Schedule (CFSS-DS) described by Cuthbert and Melamed [34]. The CFSS-DS is a 5-point Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (not afraid at all) to 5 (very afraid) for each of the 15 items. These covered different aspects of the dental situation. Total scores ranged from 15 to 75. The scale had been used in a prior study conducted in the same population in Nigeria, to measure dental anxiety [23]. Children with scores equal to and less than median score for the group were classified as having low anxiety while those who scored above the median score were classified as having high anxiety. This method of categorization had been used by Folayan et al. [35]. For this study, children with scores below 35 were categorized as having low dental anxiety and those with scores 35 and above were categorized as having high dental anxiety.

Intra-oral examination

All children eligible to participate in the study had an oral examination conducted in their homes on the day of study visits. The children were examined under natural light while sitting down on the chair, using sterile dental mirrors by trained dentists attached to each field worker. The teeth were examined wet. Intraoral examination was conducted to determine presence of caries and its severity and oral hygiene status. Radiographs were not used in the study.

Oral hygiene status

The most commonly used index to assess the oral hygiene status, the oral hygiene index was used for assessment in this study. The Oral Hygiene Index (Simplified) OHI-S described by Greene and Vermillion [36] was used to determine the oral hygiene status. It is composed of the Debris Index and Calculus index, each of which was obtained based on 6 numerical determinations representing the amount of debris or calculus found on the surfaces of the index teeth. 11, 16, 26, 31, 36 and 46 and 51, 55, 65, 71, 75, 85 in the permanent and deciduous dentitions respectively. For each individual, the debris and calculus scores were totaled and divided by the number of surfaces scored. The scores were graded as 0.0–1.2 = Good oral hygiene, 1.3–3.0 = Fair oral hygiene and > 3.1 = Poor oral hygiene.

Caries profile

The teeth were examined for caries after the OHI-S was determined. Debris was removed from the wet teeth using gauze prior to assessment for caries status. The teeth present were charted using the FDI tooth numbering system. Caries diagnosis was based on the recommendation of the World Health Organisation Oral Health Survey methods [37]. The caries status was assessed using the Decayed Missing and Filled/decayed missing and filled teeth (DMFT/dmft) index. For ease of analysis, caries status was further divided into caries present or caries absent. Children were classified as having caries present when a tooth was identified to be decayed.

To arrive at a dmft/DMFT score for an individual child, three values were determined: the number of teeth with carious lesions, the number of extracted teeth due to caries, and the number of teeth with fillings or crowns [38]. Parents of children were asked to explain the loss of any teeth that was not found during the oral examination. Only tooth extracted due to caries were recorded as missing. The number of teeth are summed together to give the dmft score for the primary dentition and the DMFT score for the permanent dentition.

Calibration of examiners

Clinical investigators were postgraduate Paedodontists and Orthodontists residents. They were calibrated on the use of the WHO criteria for caries diagnosis and the OHI-S. The intra-examiner scores ranged from 0.89 to 0.94, while inter-examiner variability ranged from 0.82 to 0.90 for caries detection and OHI-S [18].

Data analysis

Descriptive analysis was conducted using a variety of measures of location and dispersion. This was represented as Tables. A test of association was conducted to determine the association between the general anxiety subscales and the presence of caries, or the oral hygiene status. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to determine the predictors of presence of caries and good oral hygiene; and if digit sucking was a predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety. The age of the study participants were grouped into two: 6–8 years and 9–12 years. The effect of age and sex were controlled for. Statistical analysis was conducted with Intercooled STATA (release 12) for windows. Statistical significance was inferred at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

Four hundred and ninety seven participants were eligible to participate in the study. Only 450 (90.5%) participants had data complete enough for analysis of information on both dental and general (state and trait) anxiety. These included 226 (50.2%) 6-8 year olds and 222 (49.3%) male participants. Very few study participants (4.5%) had poor oral hygiene and very few sucked their digits (6.0%). Table 1 highlights the profile of the study participants.
Table 1

Frequency distribution of demographic variables, caries status, oral hygiene status and anxiety status (N = 450)

Demographic profile

N = 450

Number (%)

Age

6 years – 8 years

226 (50.2%)

9 years – 12 years

224 (49.8%)

Gender

Male

222 (49.3%)

Female

228 (50.7%)

Caries status

Caries present

76 (16.6%)

Caries free

374 (83.1%)

dmft

0

386 (85.8%)

1–2

48 (10.7%)

3–6

16 (3.5%)

DMFT

0

428 (95.1%)

1–2

18 (4.0%)

3–4

4 (0.9%)

Oral hygiene status

Good

172 (38.4%)

Fair

256 (57.1%)

Poor

20 (4.5%)

Dental anxiety

Low

226 (50.2%)

High

224 (49.8%)

General anxiety

Low

392 (87.1%)

High

58 (12.9%)

Digit sucking

Present

27 (6.0%)

Absent

423 (94.0%)

The general anxiety scores measured using the RCMAS ranged from 0 to 36. The mean score was 11.8 ± (7.6) and the median score was 9. The mean physiological anxiety score was 2.42 ± (2.36). The mean worry/oversensitivity score was 3.03 ± (3.34). The social concerns/concentration score was 1.77 ± (2.01). The mean lie score was 4.52 ± (1.84). Three hundred and ninety two (87.1%) participants had low clinically significant trait anxiety (anxiety scores less than 19) while 58 (12.9%) participants had high clinically significant trait anxiety (anxiety scores between 19 and 28).

The dental anxiety scores measured using the CFSS-DS ranged from 15 to 75. The mean score was 38.6± (14.4) and the median score was 35. Two hundred and thirteen (47.3%) participants had low dental anxiety (dental anxiety scores less than 35) while 237 (52.7%) respondents had high dental anxiety (dental anxiety scores 35 and above).

Seventy six (16.6%) participants had caries. The dmft scores ranged from 0 to 6 and the DMFT scores ranged from 0to 4. The mean dmft was 0.29 ± (0.84) and the mean DMFT was 0.08 ± (0.44).

Digit sucking and anxiety

Table 2 highlights the association between digit sucking, dental anxiety and general anxiety having controlled for age and sex. Digit sucking was not significantly associated with dental anxiety (p = 0.99) and general anxiety (p = 0.79). Neither was it a general anxiety (AOR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.23–3.07) or dental anxiety (AOR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.44–2.31) a predictor of digit sucking habit.
Table 2

Frequency distribution and logistic regression analysis of digit sucking as predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety (N = 450)

Variables

Digit sucking

Simple regression

Multiple regression

Absent (N = 423)

Percent

Present (N = 27)

Percent

OR (95% CI)

p-value

AOR (95% CI)

p-value

Sex

Male

206

48.7

16

59.3

1

1

Female

217

51.3

11

40.7

0.65 (0.30–1.44)

0.29

0.66 (0.29–1.46)

0.30

Age group

6–8 years

212

50.1

14

51.9

1

1

9–12 years

211

49.9

13

48.1

0.93 (0.43–2.03)

0.86

0.96 (0.43–2.11)

0.91

Dental Anxiety

Low

212

50.1

14

51.9

1

1

High

211

49.9

13

48.1

0.93 (0.43–2.03)

0.86

1.01 (0.44–2.31)

0.99

General anxiety

Low

368

87.0

24

88.9

1

1

High

55

13.0

3

11.1

0.84 (0.24–2.87)

0.78

0.83 (0.23–3.07)

0.79

Caries and anxiety

Table 3 shows the results of the test of association between the general anxiety subscale and caries status. Children who had caries had significant higher means scores (p <  0.001) on the physiological anxiety, worry/oversensitivity and social concerns/concentration scales respectively.
Table 3

Association between general anxiety subscales and caries status

Subscales

Caries status

Number

Mean ± sd

t

df

p value

Physiological anxiety

Present

76

3.4 ± 2.9

3.9

448

< 0.001

Absent

374

2.2 ± 2.2

Worry/oversensitivity

Present

76

4.6 ± 4.1

4.5

448

< 0.001

Absent

374

2.7 ± 3.1

Social concerns/concentration

Present

76

2.5 ± 2.4

3.6

448

< 0.001

Absent

374

1.6 ± 1.9

Lie

Present

76

4.6 ± 1.9

0.4

448

0.72

Absent

374

4.5 ± 1.8

Table 4 highlights the predictors of presence of caries. Children who had high general anxiety (OR: 5.07; 95% CI: 2.79–9.20; p <  0.001) had higher odds of having caries when compared with children with low general anxiety. Also children who had high dental anxiety (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.02–2.80; p = 0.04) had higher odds of having caries when compared with children with low dental anxiety. After adjusting for age, sex and dental anxiety, general anxiety was still a significant predictor of presence caries: children who had high general anxiety (AOR: 5.02; 95% CI: 2.59–9.74; p <  0.001) had higher odds of having caries when compared with children with low general anxiety.
Table 4

Frequency distribution and logistic regression on predictors of presence of caries (N = 450)

Variables

Caries

Simple regression

Multiple regression

Absent (N = 374)

Percent

Present (N = 76)

Percent

OR (95% CI)

p-value

AOR (95% CI)

p-value

Sex

Male

189

50.5

33

43.4

1

1

Female

185

49.5

43

56.6

1.33 (0.81–2.19)

0.26

1.35 (0.80–2.27)

0.26

Age group

6–8 years

185

49.5

41

53.9

1

1

9–12 years

189

50.5

35

46.1

0.84 (0.51–1.37)

0.48

0.91 (0.54–1.54)

0.73

Dental Anxiety

Low

196

52.4

30

39.5

1

1

High

178

47.6

46

60.5

1.69 (1.02–2.80)

0.04

1.00 (0.56–1.79)

0.99

General anxiety

Low

341

91.2

51

67.1

1

1

High

33

8.8

25

32.9

5.07 (2.79–9.20)

< 0.001

5.02 (2.59–9.74)

< 0.001

Oral hygiene and anxiety

Table 5 shows the results of the test of association between the general anxiety subscale and oral hygiene status. Children with fair oral hygiene had significant lower mean scores on each of the subscales.
Table 5

Association between general anxiety subscales and oral hygiene status

Subscales

Oral hygiene status

Number

Mean ± sd

F(df)

p value

Physiological anxiety

Good

172

2.9 ± 2.6

5.67 (2, 445, 447)

0.004

Fair

256

2.1 ± 2.1

Poor

20

2.7 ± 2.3

Worry/oversensitivity

Good

172

3.7 ± 3.7

7.52 (2, 445, 447)

0.001

Fair

256

2.5 ± 3.0

Poor

20

3.9 ± 3.5

Social concerns/concentration

Good

172

2.1 ± 2.3

5.39 (2, 445, 447)

0.005

Fair

256

1.5 ± 1.7

Poor

20

2.4 ± 2.4

Lie

Good

172

4.8 ± 1.8

3.55 (2, 445, 447)

0.03

Fair

256

4.3 ± 1.8

Poor

20

4.7 ± 1.9

Table 6 highlights the predictors of good oral hygiene. Children who had high dental anxiety (OR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.52–3.32; p <  0.001) had higher odds of having good oral hygiene when compared with children with low dental anxiety. Also children who had high general anxiety (OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.35–4.20; p = 0.002) had higher odds of having good oral hygiene when compared with children with low general anxiety. After adjusting for age, sex and general anxiety, dental anxiety was still a significant predictor of presence good oral hygiene: children who had high dental anxiety (AOR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.23–2.84; p = 0.003) had higher odds of having good oral hygiene when compared with children with low dental anxiety. Age was also a significant predictor of good oral hygiene children in the unadjusted and adjusted models: older children had lower odds of having good oral hygiene when compared with younger children (AOR: 0.66; 95% CI:0.44–0.98; p = 0.04).
Table 6

Frequency distribution and logistic regression analysis on the predictors of good oral hygiene (N = 448)

Variables

Oral Hygiene

Simple regression

Multiple regression

Poor (N = 276)

Percent

Good (N = 172)

Percent

OR (95% CI)

p-value

AOR (95% CI)

p-value

Sex

Male

142

51.4

78

45.3

1

1

Female

134

48.6

94

54.7

1.28 (0.87–1.87)

0.21

1.25 (0.84–1.86)

0.27

Age group

6–8 years

126

45.7

100

58.1

1

1

9–12 years

150

54.3

72

41.9

0.61 (0.41–0.89)

0.01

0.66 (0.44–0.98)

0.04

Dental Anxiety

Low

160

58.0

65

37.8

1

 

1

High

116

42.0

105

61.2

2.27 (1.52–3.38)

< 0.001

1.87 (1.23–2.84)

0.003

General anxiety

Low

251

90.9

139

80.8

1

1

High

25

9.1

33

19.2

2.38 (1.35–4.20)

0.002

1.71 (0.94–3.11)

0.08

Discussion

The study highlighted the association between dental anxiety, general anxiety, digit sucking, caries and oral hygiene status of children in the age range for mixed dentition, in the study population. We found that digit sucking was not a significant predictor of dental anxiety or general anxiety. The prevalence of high dental anxiety was high in the study population; children with high dental anxiety and younger children were significantly more likely to have good oral hygiene. About an eight of the population had high general anxiety; children with high general anxiety were significantly more likely to have caries.

First, like Tyron [9] and unlike Mahalski and Stanton [10], we found that digit sucking was not a significant predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety in this study population. We however were unable to explain these observations though we assume it may be linked with the ways culture influences expression of anxiety: we assume that the African culture promotes internalization of problems and its expressions unlike other cultures where externalizing problems and anxiety are welcome and accepted [8].

Second, unlike many prior studies that had found an association between dental anxiety and the increased risk for caries [3944], our studies could not establish such association. Some of these studies had conducted bivariate analysis (tests of associations) to establish these associations [39, 40] and others had conducted the studies in older children [34, 35]. Studies that have conducted more robust analysis using logistic regression models reported an association between presence of caries and dental anxiety in older children [43, 44]. The difference in study methodology including differences in the age of the study population and method of data analysis, are factors that can significantly influence study outcome. Our study illustrated this in that with simple logistic regression analysis, dental anxiety was associated with presence of caries. However, when the model was adjusted for age, sex and general anxiety, the observed significance was lost. A few other studies [4547] had also found no association between presence of caries and dental anxiety.

Third, we also noticed that age and sex were not predictors of caries for children with mixed dentition in this study population. Other studies on dental caries in the mixed dentition had reported similar findings [48, 49] while others had reported observations different from ours [40, 50]. This disparity in study findings may point to residential and cultural differences in risk factors for caries. ‘Genderization’ of diseases and disease processes are also a reflection of how societies and communities ‘genderize’ behaviors that increase risk for diseases [5153]. Ile-Ife is still considered a sub-rural area where the impact of genderized’ behaviors is seen much later in life than during the mixed dentition stage. Thus, children and teenagers still, for the most part, have homogenized behaviors [54] with distinct age and sexual behaviors occurring at a later age than observed in urbanized communities. Such differences in behavior like being disorganized, self-consciousness and low esteem, increased independency [55] may increase the risk for caries [56]. The homogenized behavior of children in this study population may be a reason why we did not observe significant sexual and age difference in their caries profile.

Fourth, we observed age differences in the oral hygiene profile. A prior study had highlighted differences in the oral hygiene profile of children with primary dentition (1–5 years) and those with mixed dentition (6–12 years) [57]: younger children had better oral hygiene than older children. This study further highlights that for children with mixed dentition, children (6–8 years) had better oral hygiene than teenagers (9-12 years). We feel tooth brushing of children (6-8 years) are still supervised and so increases the chances of having better oral hygiene profile than teenagers who are free from parental supervision of tooth brushing. Our study may be a reflection of this phenomenon. This however, requires further investigation.

Fifth, the independency of the association between general anxiety, dental anxiety, caries and oral hygiene status when adjusted for age and sex, may suggest the independency of the two phenomena – dental anxiety and general anxiety – contrary to the opinion of Winer [5]. Folayan et al. [8] had also reported a moderate but significant correlation between self report of dental anxiety and general anxiety of 8–13 year old children’s in the same study population. This study however, conducted a more robust analysis by adjusting for age and sex as possible confounding variables for dental and general anxiety as highlighted in the literatures. The finding of this regression analysis points to the possibility that the direct relationship observed may be lost in the presence of confounding variables. This postulation needs to be studied further.

This study had a few limitations. First, though the study finding is generalization to the study population, the finding may not be generalizable to a more urban population where culture and behavior of children are more diverse and influenced by multiple variables. Also, this study was based on a secondary data analysis thus the study was not powered to determine differences in digit sucking habit, caries and oral hygiene status based on general anxiety and dental anxiety status. The primary study did not identify caries using radiographs thus it only gave a rough estimate of the prevalence of dental caries in the study population. Examining oral hygiene status in wet conditions without using other aids and without any standardization for the time of examination may also bias the finding. We have however followed standard procedures for assessing oral hygiene status thus making our findings comparable with others that used the OHI-S.Also, when working with children, the lack of attention and poor understanding can generates bias. The finding on the association between general anxiety and caries needs to be taken with caution as the confidence interval is wide. Though we have used a logistic regression analysis to determine digit sucking as a predictor for general and dental anxiety, we recognize that prediction requires a longitudinal design as it involves causality. This study was a cross sectional study thus limited in its ability to truly predict and more powered to determine an association. Despite these limitations, the study has added clarity to our understanding of the association between the variables studied, and suggests that significant associations and effects of general anxiety and dental anxiety on presence of digit sucking, presence of caries and presence of good oral hygiene.

Conclusion

Digit sucking was not a significant predictor of general anxiety and dental anxiety in the study population. General anxiety significantly increases the likelihood of presence of caries while dental anxiety significantly increases the likelihood of good oral hygiene. Further studies are required to understand how dental anxiety and general anxiety play independent roles as the risk factors for dental caries and oral hygiene when past studies had shown direct relationship between dental anxiety and general anxiety [58, 59] and caries and oral hygiene status [52, 53].

Abbreviations

AOR: 

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CFSS-DS: 

Dental Subscale of the Child Fear Survey Schedule

dmft/DMFT: 

Decay, missing, filled teeth

NNS: 

Non-nutritive sucking

OR: 

Odds Ratio

RCMAS: 

The Revised Child Manifest Anxiety Scale

SD: 

Standard Deviation

WHO: 

World Health Organisation

Declarations

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

MOF designed the study. MOF, KAK, NKO, HOA, NMC and TAO were involved with the extraction of datafrom the primary data set and organization of the data for analysis MOF conducted the analysis and developed the framework for the manuscript. MOF, KAK, NKO, HOA, NMC and TAO contributed to the interpretation and discussion of the results. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for the conduct of secondary analysis of the primary study data was obtained from the Ethics and Research Committee of the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex Ile-Ife (ERC/2013/07/14). Children 1–7 year old children gave parental consent for study participation, and children 8–12 year old children gave assent for study participation in addition to parental consent.

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 Access This 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)
Department of Child Dental Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
(2)
Oral Habit Study Group, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
(3)
Department of Child Dental Health, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

References

  1. Foster LG. Nervous habits and stereotyped behaviors in preschool children. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;37:711–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Tanaka OM, Vitral RW, Tanaka GY, Guerrero AP, Camargo ES. Nail biting, or onychophagia: a special habit. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134:305–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Festila D, Ghergie M, Muntean A, Matiz D, Serbanescu A. Suckling and non- nutritive sucking habit: what should we know? Clujul Med. 2014;87:11–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Shahraki N, Yassaei S, Moghadam MG. Abnormal oral habits: a review. J Dent Oral Hyg. 2012;4:12–5.Google Scholar
  5. Winer GA. A review and analysis of children’s fearful behaviour in dental setting. Child Dev. 1982;53:1111–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Klingberg G. Dental fear and behaviour management problems in children. Swed Dent J. 1995;103:1–78.Google Scholar
  7. Neverlien PO. Fear and dental apprehension among school-age children in a rural district. Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid. 1989;99:574–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Folayan MO, Idehen EE, Ojo OO. Dental anxiety in a subpopulation of African children: parents ability to predict and its relation to general anxiety and behaviour in the dental chair. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004;5:19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tyron AF. Thumb-sucking and manifest anxiety: a note. Child Dev. 1968;39:1159–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Mahalski PA, Stanton WR. The relationship between digit sucking and behaviour problems: a longitudinal study over 10 years. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992;33:913–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Haryett RD, Hansen FC, Davidson PO, Snadilands ML. Chronic thumb-sucking: the psychologic effects and the relative effectiveness of various methods of treatment. Am J Ortho. 1967;53:569–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Diwanji A, Jain P, Doshi J, Somani P, Mehta D. Modified bluegrass appliance: a non-punitive therapy for thumb sucking in pediatric patients - a case report with review of the literature. Case Rep Dent. 2013;2013:537120.Google Scholar
  13. Shimura N, Nakamura C, Hirayama Y, Yonemitsu M. Anxiety and dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983;11:224–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nair MA, Shankarapillai R, Rai N, Ragotham K, Charanbabu HS. Dental anxiety and oral hygiene in Udaipur rural women. Inter J Dent Clin. 2010;2:33–5.Google Scholar
  15. Kanaffa-Kilijanska U, Kaczmarek U, Kilijanska B, Frydecka D. Oral health condition and hygiene habits among adult. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2014;12:233–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. DeDonno MA. Dental anxiety, dental visits and oral hygiene practices. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2012;10:129–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. de Carvalho RW, de Carvalho Bezerra Falcão PG, de Luna Campos GJ, de Souza Andrade ES, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, da Silva Pereira MA. Prevalence and predictive factors of dental anxiety in Brazilian adolescents. J Dent Child (Chic). 2013;80(1):41–6.Google Scholar
  18. Kolawole KA, Folayan MO, Agbaje HO, Oyedele TA, Oziegbe EO, Onyejaka NK, et al. Digit sucking habit and association with dental caries and oral hygiene status of children aged 6 months to 12 years in semi-urban Nigeria. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0148322.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. United Nations Children’s Fund. National report Nigeria: Global study on child poverty and disparities. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Nigeria_GLOBAL_STUDY_ON_CHILD_POVERTY_AND_DISPARITIES_smaller.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
  20. Federal Ministry of Health. Technical report 2010, vol. 2010. Nigeria: National HIV sero-prevalence sentinel survey among pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in Nigeria, Department of Public Health and National AIDS/STI Control Programme.Google Scholar
  21. Federal Ministry of Health. National HIV & AIDS and reproductive health survey, Abuja. 2013.Google Scholar
  22. Araoye MO. Research methodology with statistics for health and social sciences. Nathadex Publishing, Ilorin. 2003:115–9.Google Scholar
  23. Quashie-Williams R, da Costa OO, Isiekwe MC. Oral habits, prevalence and effects on occlusion of 4-15 year old school children in Lagos, Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2010;17:113–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Ministry of Health. National HIV and AIDS reproductive health survey. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health; 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Federal Ministry of Health. National HIV/AIDS and reproductive health survey. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health; 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Federal Ministry of Health. HIV/STI integrated biological and behavioural surveillance survey (IBBSS). Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Federal Ministry of Health. HIV/STI integrated biological and behavioural surveillance survey (IBBSS). Abuja: Federal Ministry of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Folayan MO, Adebajo S, Adeyemo A, Ogungbemi KM. Differences in sexual practices, sexual behavior and HIV risk profile between adolescents and young persons in rural and urban Nigeria. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129106.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Folayan MO, Odetoyingbo M, Brandon B, Harrison A. Differences in sexual behaviour and sexual practices of adolescents in Nigeria based on sex and self-reported HIV status. BMC Reprod Health. 2014;11:83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds CR, Richmond BO. Factor structure and construct validity of what I think and feel: the revised Children's manifest anxiety scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;43:281–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Pela OA, Reynolds CR. Cross-cultural application of the revised-children's manifest anxiety scale: normative and reliability data for Nigerian primary school children. Psychol Rep. 1982;51:1135–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Cuthbert MI, Melamed BG. A screening device for children at risk for dental fear ad management problems. J Dent Child. 1982;49:432–6.Google Scholar
  33. Al Jabery MA, Arabiat DH. Psychometric properties of the Arabic translated version of the RCMAS: preliminary indicators from a Jordanian sample. J Int Couns Educ. 2011;3:13–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Folayan MO, Otuyemi OD. Reliability and validity of a short form of the dental subscale of the child fear survey schedule used in a Nigerian children population. Niger J Med. 2002;11:161–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Folayan MO, Idehen EE, Ojo OO. Dental anxiety in a subpopulation of African children: parents ability to predict and its relation to general anxiety and behaviour in the dental chair. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004;1:19–22.Google Scholar
  36. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964;68:7–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. World Health Organisation (WHO). Oral health surveys: basic methods. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1997.Google Scholar
  38. Krapp K. Dental indices. Encyclopedia of Nursing & Allied Health. Ed. Vol. 2. Gale Cengage. eNotes.com. http://www.enotes.com/dental-indices-reference/. Accessed 2 Jan 2012.
  39. Milsom KM, Tickle M, Humphris GM, Blinkhorn AS. The relationship between anxiety and dental treatment experience in 5-year old children. BDJ. 2003;194:503–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Viswanath D, Krishna AV. Correlation between dental anxiety, sense of coherence (SOC) and dental caries in school children from Bangalore north: a cross-sectional study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015;33:15–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Esa R, Ong AL, Humphris G, Freeman R. The relationship of dental caries and dental fear in Malaysian adolescents: a latent variable approach. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:19.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Taani DQ, El-Qaderi SS, Abu Alhaija ES. Dental anxiety in children and its relationship to dental caries and gingival condition. Int J Dent Hyg. 2005;3:83–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kruger E, Thomson WM, Poulton R, Davies S, Brown RH, Silva PA. Dental caries and changes in dental anxiety in late adolescence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998;26:355–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rantavuori K, Lahti S, Hausen H, Seppa L, Karkkainen S. Dental fear and oral healthand family characteristics of Finnish children. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004;62:207–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Abanto J, Vidigal EA, Carvalho TS, Sá SN, Bönecker M. Factors for determining dental anxiety in preschool children with severe dental caries. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Alkarslan ZZ, Erten H, Uzun O, Iseri E, Topun O. Relationship between trait anxiety, dental anxiety and DMFT indexes of Turkish patient attending a dental school clinic. East Mediterr Health J. 2010;16:558–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomson WM, Locker D, Poulton R. Incidence of dental anxiety in young adults in relation to dental treatment experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28:289–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Sudha PA, Bhasin S, Anegundi RT. Prevalence of dental caries among 5-13-year-old children of Mangalore city. J Indian Soc Ped Prev Dent. 2005;23:74–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Shetty NS, Tandon S. Prevalence of dental caries as related to risk factors in school children of south Kanara. J Indian Soc Ped Prev Dent. 1988;6:30–7.Google Scholar
  50. Zander A, Sivaneswaran S, Skinnerr J, Byun R, Jalaludin B. Risk factors for dental caries in rural and urban regional Australian communities. Rural Remote Health. 2013;13:2492.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Guerra-Silveira F, Abad-Franch F. Sex bias in infectious disease epidemiology: patterns and processes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e62390.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Ferraro M, Vieira AR. Explaining gender differences in caries: a multifactorial approach to a multifactorial disease. Int J Dent. 2010;2010:649643.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein SL, Roberts CW, editors. Sex and Gender Differences in Infection and Treatments for Infectious Diseases. Springer International Publishing AG; 2015. ISBN 978-3-319-16438-0.Google Scholar
  54. Rimmo PA. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Ergonomics. 2002;45:569–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lewis GJ, Haworth CM, Plomin R. Identical genetic influence underpin behavior problems in adolescence and basictraits of personality. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55:865–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Abreu LG, Elyasi M, Badri P, Paiva SM, Flores-Mir C, Amin M. Factors associated with the development of dental caries in children and adolescents in studies employing the life course approach: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12206.
  57. Hakeberg M, Hägglin C, Berggren U, Carlsson SG. Structural relationships of dental anxiety, mood, and general anxiety. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001;59:99–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sowole A, Sote E, Folayan M. Dental caries, pattern and predisposing oral hygiene related factors in Nigerian preschool children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007;8:206–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ayele FA, Taye BW, Ayele TA, Gelaye KA. Predictors of dental caries among children 7-14 years in north West Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2013;13:7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement