木铲法和塑料移液法在婴幼儿龋齿风险评估中的评价。

Brazilian dental journal Pub Date : 2025-04-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0103-644020256407
Silvina Tineo, Paulo Nelson-Filho, Thais Citolino Barbosa, José Maria Alvarez Gimenez, Raquel Assed Bezzera da Silva, Lea Assed Bezzera da Silva, Marta Estela Saravia
{"title":"木铲法和塑料移液法在婴幼儿龋齿风险评估中的评价。","authors":"Silvina Tineo, Paulo Nelson-Filho, Thais Citolino Barbosa, José Maria Alvarez Gimenez, Raquel Assed Bezzera da Silva, Lea Assed Bezzera da Silva, Marta Estela Saravia","doi":"10.1590/0103-644020256407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to compare two different methods (wooden spatula and plastic pipette) for the collection of unstimulated saliva for colony counting of Mutans Streptococci species (MS) (microbiological caries risk), in infants and toddlers. The children's behavior was favorable (very comfortable or comfortable) and unfavorable (uncomfortable or very uncomfortable), while the saliva collection, was also evaluated. Saliva samples were obtained from 19 children aged 1-29 months, of both sexes and seeded by both methods, obtaining the MS CFU numbers. The ANOVA test was used to statistically analyze the microbiological results, and the Z-test and chi-square test were used to analyze the behavioral assessment (α= 0,05%). 63.1% and 57.9% of children had MS in their saliva, using the saliva collection techniques with a spatula and a pipette, respectively. The number of CFUs was an average of 10.47 for saliva collected with the spatula and 7.32 for saliva collected with the pipette, however, there was no statistical difference between the methods (p=0.696653). Comparing the ages 1-6 months and 18-29 months, the older children showed higher CFU numbers, for both methods (p=0.000383). The clinical assessment of the child's behavior demonstrated a significant statistical difference between the two methods, with more positive behavior for the spatula (p<0.001). In conclusion, the wooden spatula method can be used for saliva collection and quantifying of the MS levels in infants and toddlers, since there was no significant difference in the CFUs count, furthermore is better accepted based on the child's behavior, compared to the plastic pipette technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":101363,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian dental journal","volume":"36 ","pages":"e246407"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11996158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of wooden spatula and plastic pipette methods for caries risk assessment in infants and toddlers.\",\"authors\":\"Silvina Tineo, Paulo Nelson-Filho, Thais Citolino Barbosa, José Maria Alvarez Gimenez, Raquel Assed Bezzera da Silva, Lea Assed Bezzera da Silva, Marta Estela Saravia\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0103-644020256407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study aimed to compare two different methods (wooden spatula and plastic pipette) for the collection of unstimulated saliva for colony counting of Mutans Streptococci species (MS) (microbiological caries risk), in infants and toddlers. The children's behavior was favorable (very comfortable or comfortable) and unfavorable (uncomfortable or very uncomfortable), while the saliva collection, was also evaluated. Saliva samples were obtained from 19 children aged 1-29 months, of both sexes and seeded by both methods, obtaining the MS CFU numbers. The ANOVA test was used to statistically analyze the microbiological results, and the Z-test and chi-square test were used to analyze the behavioral assessment (α= 0,05%). 63.1% and 57.9% of children had MS in their saliva, using the saliva collection techniques with a spatula and a pipette, respectively. The number of CFUs was an average of 10.47 for saliva collected with the spatula and 7.32 for saliva collected with the pipette, however, there was no statistical difference between the methods (p=0.696653). Comparing the ages 1-6 months and 18-29 months, the older children showed higher CFU numbers, for both methods (p=0.000383). The clinical assessment of the child's behavior demonstrated a significant statistical difference between the two methods, with more positive behavior for the spatula (p<0.001). In conclusion, the wooden spatula method can be used for saliva collection and quantifying of the MS levels in infants and toddlers, since there was no significant difference in the CFUs count, furthermore is better accepted based on the child's behavior, compared to the plastic pipette technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian dental journal\",\"volume\":\"36 \",\"pages\":\"e246407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11996158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian dental journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-644020256407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-644020256407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该研究旨在比较两种不同的方法(木刮刀和塑料移液器),用于收集婴儿和幼儿中变形链球菌物种(微生物龋齿风险)的非刺激唾液菌落计数。儿童的行为分为有利(非常舒适或舒适)和不利(不舒服或非常不舒服),同时也对唾液收集进行了评估。采集19例1-29月龄男女儿童的唾液样本,采用两种方法接种,获得MS CFU编号。微生物学结果采用方差分析进行统计学分析,行为评价采用z检验和卡方检验(α= 0.05%)。63.1%和57.9%的儿童唾液中存在MS,分别采用刮刀和移液法采集唾液。刮刀法和移液法的平均cfu数分别为10.47个和7.32个,两种方法间差异无统计学意义(p=0.696653)。比较1-6月龄和18-29月龄,两种方法中年龄较大的患儿CFU数较高(p=0.000383)。对儿童行为的临床评估显示两种方法之间有显著的统计学差异,刮刀的行为更积极(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of wooden spatula and plastic pipette methods for caries risk assessment in infants and toddlers.

The study aimed to compare two different methods (wooden spatula and plastic pipette) for the collection of unstimulated saliva for colony counting of Mutans Streptococci species (MS) (microbiological caries risk), in infants and toddlers. The children's behavior was favorable (very comfortable or comfortable) and unfavorable (uncomfortable or very uncomfortable), while the saliva collection, was also evaluated. Saliva samples were obtained from 19 children aged 1-29 months, of both sexes and seeded by both methods, obtaining the MS CFU numbers. The ANOVA test was used to statistically analyze the microbiological results, and the Z-test and chi-square test were used to analyze the behavioral assessment (α= 0,05%). 63.1% and 57.9% of children had MS in their saliva, using the saliva collection techniques with a spatula and a pipette, respectively. The number of CFUs was an average of 10.47 for saliva collected with the spatula and 7.32 for saliva collected with the pipette, however, there was no statistical difference between the methods (p=0.696653). Comparing the ages 1-6 months and 18-29 months, the older children showed higher CFU numbers, for both methods (p=0.000383). The clinical assessment of the child's behavior demonstrated a significant statistical difference between the two methods, with more positive behavior for the spatula (p<0.001). In conclusion, the wooden spatula method can be used for saliva collection and quantifying of the MS levels in infants and toddlers, since there was no significant difference in the CFUs count, furthermore is better accepted based on the child's behavior, compared to the plastic pipette technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信