essay on oral health and hygiene

• Skip to main content

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Essay on Health and Hygiene for Students in English [500 Words]

January 1, 2021 by Sandeep

Essay on Health and Hygiene: The best practices for maintaining the good frame of our body includes health and hygiene. They are like two sides of the same coin. If we keep our surroundings clean and hygienic, we can maintain good health and well being. Living in unhygienic surroundings causes infections and brings down the overall health of a person causing diseases. The key elements of living a good life include basic cleanliness practices and inculcating personal and environmental hygiene habits.

Essay on Health and Hygiene 500 Words in English

Below we have provided Health and Hygiene Essay in English, suitable for class 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

It is health that is the real wealth and not pieces of gold and silver. – Mahatma Gandhi

Health is the mental as well as physical well being of an individual. It is a state in which the person is free from any injury or illness. It also means being socially and spiritually sound and well. Hygiene is a practice carried out to preserve health and prevent diseases. It is dominantly done through the habit of cleanliness .

Characteristics of a Healthy and Hygienic Person

A physically healthy person will always be fit. He or she will neither be too thin nor too fat. One has to keep a balanced and appropriate weight because being obese can lead to several fatal diseases like cancer and diabetes . Obese people are also more prone to the risk of heart attacks. A hygienic person will always wash his or her hands regularly. Washing hands is necessary before and after meals, after coming back home from outside, after playing in the park, etc. This is because various germs get onto our hands and our nails.

Hence it becomes crucial to get rid of them, or they may cause illnesses like stomach aches, diarrhoea, etc. A mentally healthy person is always contented and self-satisfied. He or she is calm, composed and understanding. A mentally well individual has determination and self-respect. He or she continually adjusts with other people and doesn’t believe in complaining. Another trait of a healthy person is stable and regular breathing. The average breath rate is 14 to 20 breaths per minute.

If the breathing of a person is irregular, heavy or unsteady, then that person may be unhealthy and may be suffering from some illness. A hygienic person will always have the basic courtesy to cover their mouth and nose or turn away from other people while coughing or sneezing. Wearing a mask while one is ill can also be a good practice. If this is not done, then the germ droplets can fall on other people’s face, hands or body and thus cause them to fall ill as well.

Factors Leading to ill Health

Certain diseases are known to be hereditary and can cause a negative effect on a person’s health. Genetic diseases include diabetes, schizophrenia, baldness, etc. There are always ways which a person can adopt not to fall victim to these hereditary illnesses. For example, a person who has a family history of diabetes can make changes in one’s lifestyle and cut down his or her fat and sugar intake.

Social factors can also contribute majorly to a person’s health. It can lead to betterment as well as the development of ill health. Worries, anxieties, broken marriages, stress, etc. all lead to ill health. If a person is not satisfied with his or her employment or if the neighbourhood that he or she lives in is not safe, then this can lead to deterioration of the person’s mental as well as physical health.

A person indulged in alcohol, smoking, drugs, weed and other narcotics becomes mentally unstable and physically ill. The reasons for them giving into the usage of these hazardous products can be numerous. It may be peer pressure, broken homes, loss of a near and dear one, getting fired from a job, etc. The intake of these products can lead to permanent damages which can often be fatal to a human body.

Practices to Follow for Good Health and Hygiene

Always follow good and regular oral hygiene. It is the duty of parents to instil healthy oral hygiene practices in their children. Brushing one’s teeth at least twice a day is necessary. Along with brushing, the habit of flossing and rinsing with mouthwash should also be inculcated. Rinsing should be done after the consumption of every meal so that there is no bacteria growth and tooth decay. Good oral hygiene can prevent a person from having bad breath, cavities, etc.

Taking a bath or a shower daily is vital to maintain a clean and hygienic body. Our skin is the largest part of our body, and it is essential to keep it free of germs and other bacteria. A bath helps one have clear skin and body and also gets rid of the old and dead skin cells, thus paving the way for the new ones to take their place. Consumption of a nutritious and balanced diet is critical to have good health. Intake of all nutrients in fair amounts is essential to provide the body with the required energy and keep it strong.

Oral hygiene can reduce risk of some cancers

April 18, 2024—A healthy mouth microbiome can help prevent a number of diseases, including cancer , according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Mingyang Song .

Song, associate professor of clinical epidemiology and nutrition, was among the experts quoted in an April 4 Everyday Health article about the connections between mouth, gum, and tooth health and overall health. “Alterations in the oral microbiome can cause systemic inflammation and increase disease risk indirectly,” Song explained. Microbes in the mouth can also travel to other parts of the body and directly increase the risk of conditions like diabetes , heart disease , Alzheimer’s disease , and various cancers, he added.

Previous studies co-authored by Song have shed light on the oral microbiome’s impacts on the risk of stomach and colorectal cancers. One study found that people with a history of gum disease have a 52% greater chance of developing stomach cancer compared with those without gum disease, and that losing two or more teeth raised stomach cancer risk by 33%. Another study found that people with gum disease had a 17% greater chance than those without gum disease of developing a serrated polyp—a type of polyp that can lead to colon cancer. The study also found that people who had lost at least four teeth had a 20% higher risk of a serrated polyp.

The takeaway, Song said, is to keep the mouth microbiome healthy. This can be accomplished through practicing oral hygiene—visiting the dentist regularly and brushing, flossing, and using mouthwash daily—as well as maintaining an overall healthy lifestyle through diet , exercise , and avoiding smoking .

Read the article in Everyday Health: The Health of Your Mouth May Affect Your Risk of Colorectal Cancer

– Maya Brownstein

Image: iStock/fizkes

Oral Hygiene

Table of contents

• 1 Oral hygiene problems
• 2 Oral care products
• 3 Toothbrush guides
• 4 Toothpaste guides
• 5 Natural tooth care
• 6 Toothbrush reviews
• 7 Visiting a dental hygienist
• 8 What is oral hygiene?
• 9 Visiting a hygienist

Oral hygiene problems

Oral care products

Toothbrush guides

Toothpaste guides

Natural tooth care

Toothbrush reviews

Visiting a dental hygienist

What is oral hygiene?

‘Oral hygiene' is a general term that describes the practice of keeping your mouth clean and free from disease or infections.

At a basic level, this means brushing your teeth twice a day and flossing daily. This helps remove harmful plaque that has built up on your teeth. Some people like to use a tongue scraper too, to remove debris from their tongue.

If you're not a fan of flossing with traditional string floss, you could try a water flosser instead. These electric devices shoot a jet of water between your teeth to dislodge food and plaque stuck there. They are less fiddly to use than floss, and also considerably quicker.

And what about brushing your teeth? You may have done this every day for as long as you can remember, but it's helpful to remind yourself of the correct technique from time to time. Rather than brushing from side to side, you should use small circular motions to be most effective and avoid harming your gums.

Your choice of toothpaste and toothbrush can make a big difference to how enjoyable and effective your oral hygiene routine is.

If you often find yourself forgetting to brush, or you're guilty of stopping short of the recommended two minutes, perhaps a smart toothbrush would be a good investment. AI technology can track where you brush, and feed this information back to you via an app. In this way, you can immediately see whether you missed any teeth the first time around.

Visiting a hygienist

Taking care of your teeth and gums doesn't stop at home. Even the best toothbrush in the world can only do so much, and it's a good idea to also visit your dentist or hygienist for regular cleanings and check-ups.

A dental hygienist uses specialist cleaning equipment to dislodge any plaque that has hardened into tartar. Tartar can't be removed by brushing alone, so if you notice a visible white buildup on or between your teeth, it's time to book a hygienist appointment for a teeth cleaning.

The frequency of your hygienist appointments will depend a little on the condition of your teeth and mouth. Some people only need to visit every 12-18 months, whereas others might need cleanings as often as every three months, if they are at particular risk. You should follow the advice of your dental team on this.

If you take good care of your oral hygiene then you shouldn't have to worry about bad breath. However, this can be a result of other problems such as digestive issues. If you're concerned about bad breath even though you take good care of your mouth, it might be worth getting it checked out by a doctor.

All in all, the more you pay attention to your oral hygiene now, the less likely you are to experience expensive and painful problems with your teeth later in life.

Don't worry, we won't share your email with any third parties.

Humana is a trusted dental coverage option in the US, renowned for its extensive network of over 335,000 participating dentists. With headquarters in Louisville, KY, Humana, Inc. is a for-profit healthcare organization that generated revenues surpassing $92 billion in 2022. Beyond financial success, Humana has received prestigious accolades, including Forbes’ “JUST 100” list and top rankings for customer treatment, mail-order pharmacy services, corporate responsibility, and diversity.

Discover the Humana Extend dental plans, designed to provide comprehensive coverage for dental, vision, and hearing benefits. These plans cater to consumers seeking inclusive dental care, with options like coverage for dental implants. Inspired by customer feedback emphasizing the importance of whole-person care, Humana Extend represents a transition from traditional dental insurance. Experience the next level of dental coverage with Humana Extend.

• Member Login

Oral-Systemic Health

• Periodontal disease has been associated with a number of health conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.
• While a number of associations have been found between periodontitis and systemic conditions, finding direct causality remains elusive.
• Periodontal and systemic diseases share many common risk factors, including smoking and poor diet.

While the idea that oral bacteria may contribute to disease in other parts of the body has been discussed since at least the late 19 th century, 1 for the last several decades a number of systemic diseases have been associated with oral health, particularly cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. 2-5   There are two mechanisms which have been hypothesized to explain the observed associations. Firstly, chronic inflammation in the oral cavity may increase levels of inflammatory markers in the bloodstream affecting immune response, or adding to the body’s general burden of disease.  Secondly, the oral cavity may act as a reservoir for pathogenic bacteria that can enter the bloodstream and affect distant-site or systemic pathologies (systemic endotoxemia or bacteremia).

In 2000, the Surgeon General issued a report on the status of oral health in the US, recognizing an association between periodontal diseases and cardiovascular health, stroke, diabetes, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and calling for more research to determine whether causation may be established. 4, 5   Despite the lack of evidence of a causal link between periodontal disease and other system health concerns, the report emphasized that “[O]ral health is integral to general health.  You cannot be healthy without oral health.” 4

A series of articles in a 2006 JADA  supplement addressed the association of periodontal disease to diabetes, 3 cardiovascular health, 2 pregnancy outcomes, 6 and pneumonia. 7   The body of research has grown since then, and while the links between oral and systemic health have become more clear, it remains difficult to ascribe causality. 8, 9

In 2020, the ADA passed Resolution 84H-2020, stating that, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, “dentistry is essential and should remain an independent health care profession that safeguards, promotes and provides care for the health of the public, which may be in collaboration with other healthcare professionals.”  A similar message was released in 2021 by the World Dental Federation (FDI) to policymakers, which called “for oral health to be considered an essential element of general health and well-being.” 10

The Surgeon General’s report of 2000 was updated in 2021 , echoing the original statement while stressing the social and behavioral inequities that limit access to care. 11 The report provides a call to action, urging policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the community to “work together to provide integrated oral, medical, and behavioral health care” and to address “social, economic, or other systemic inequities that affect oral health behaviors and access to care.” 11

Do these relationships tell us about causality or intervention?

Significant associations between oral health status and a number of systemic diseases have been established, including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, obesity, diabetes and metabolic disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, and several cancers. 12-24   Most researchers point out that despite sometimes strong relationships between oral diseases and systemic conditions, such associations do not imply causation and may be biased by confounding factors, because “any association could potentially be due to another factor that influences both conditions.” 25

Periodontal disease is common, 21, 26 with prevalence of up to 50% overall. 14, 27, 28    Similarly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 47% of Americans have at least one risk factor for heart disease, such as diabetes, obesity, poor diet, alcohol abuse, or smoking. 29   There is a significant overlap between factors seen to increase risk of periodontal disease and heart disease. 30   People who smoke are not only at increased risk of gum disease, they have a higher risk for heart disease and stroke, as well as lung and other cancers. 31   In addition, babies born to women who smoke are at increased risk of being low birth weight. 32   Two or more diseases occurring in the same person, commonly referred to as comorbidities, may result from the same influencing factor, for example, smoking; people who smoke are at higher risk for heart disease and stroke, as well as gum disease. 8, 9, 12, 30, 33, 34

Although a number of studies control for confounding factors and have found independent associations between periodontal and systemic diseases, establishing causality remains elusive, and the efficacy of periodontal treatment on a systemic condition cannot be posited without interventional studies and randomized clinical trials.  Without such evidence, implying that periodontal treatment may reduce risk of a systemic disease “would be incorrect and misleading.” 35   As stated in a 2013 editorial in JADA , “telling our patients that periodontal infections cause a plethora of nonoral diseases and conditions cannot be supported by existing evidence.” 25   Although a number of studies have associated lower healthcare costs for patients with type 2 diabetes following periodontal interventions, 36-38 at this time there is insufficient evidence that periodontal treatment should be encouraged or provided solely on the basis of preventing future onset of any systemic disease.

A number of systemic conditions and disease can affect oral health, systemically or due to physical inability to maintain appropriate oral hygiene.  Systemic conditions that can affect oral health include: 11

• Alzheimer’s disease and dementia
• Chronic kidney disease
• Osteoarthritis
• Osteoporosis (including treatments )
• Radiation therapies (see Oncology Agents and Medications )
• Sjögren Disease and Xerostomia
• Sleep disorders (including Sleep Apnea )
• Hypophosphatasia and X-Linked Hypophosphatemia
• Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Behavioral and social disorders including interpersonal violence and elder abuse, or conditions involving chronic pain such as osteoarthritis, or motor control such as multiple sclerosis (MS), present a number of symptoms that can adversely affect oral health care and treatment, and may provide challenges to the dental clinician. 11, 39

The relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease is seen to be bidirectional, meaning that hyperglycemia affects oral health while periodontitis affects glycemic control (e.g., increased HbA1c). 40-44   Obesity and other systemic inflammatory conditions, often exacerbated by stress or smoking and poor oral health maintenance, may contribute to periodontal breakdown and osteoclastic activity. 12, 16

As such comorbidities or “multimorbidities” are increasing, 34 researchers are advocating an integrated approach to health care, as emphasized in recent reports from the FDI, the ADA, and the Surgeon General.  A thorough review of the patient’s medical and dental history prior to treatment planning, as well as consultation with other healthcare providers, may be helpful to supporting an integrated approach to multimorbidities. 12, 19, 39, 45

Gingivitis is very common among children, affecting approximately 70% of pediatric patients. 46, 47 Generalized periodontitis in prepubescent children, however, may be a manifestation of a systemic disease (e.g., congenital or hematological).  Referring a child with generalized periodontitis to a physician may help determine whether the periodontitis is a manifestation of a systemic disease. 46-50   As seen in the table, periodontal disease manifest in a child may be the sentinel symptom of a more serious condition.

Whether the periodontal symptoms are plaque-induced or systemic, early diagnosis and treatment is essential, although the success of periodontal therapy may be inhibited by systemic disease. 51   Delaying treatment of periodontal disease in children to facilitate differential diagnosis may increase the risk of bone loss.

Oral-Systemic Health Integration (Trans.2022:XXX)

Resolved , that the ADA supports and encourages treatment to optimize a patient’s oral health status prior to organ transplants, joint replacements, cardiac surgery, and other medical procedures, and be it further

Resolved , that the ADA supports and encourages research, collaboration and appropriate treatment discussions between dentists and other health care providers to help identify systemic diseases which are suspected to have a relationship to a patient’s oral health.

• Barnett ML. The oral-systemic disease connection. An update for the practicing dentist. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:5S-6S.
• Demmer RT, Desvarieux M. Periodontal infections and cardiovascular disease: the heart of the matter. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:14S-20S; quiz 38S.
• Mealey BL. Periodontal disease and diabetes. A two-way street. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:26S-31S.
• Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. J Calif Dent Assoc 2000;28(9):685-95.
• U.S. Public Health Service. Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (Executive Summary). Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services 2000. " https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/data-statistics/surgeon-general ". Accessed April 5, 2018.
• Bobetsis YA, Barros SP, Offenbacher S. Exploring the relationship between periodontal disease and pregnancy complications. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:7S-13S.
• Scannapieco FA. Pneumonia in nonambulatory patients. The role of oral bacteria and oral hygiene. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:21S-25S.
• Barnett ML, Hyman JJ. Challenges in interpreting study results: the conflict between appearance and reality. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl:32S-36S.
• Lockhart PB, Bolger AF, Papapanou PN, et al. Periodontal disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease: does the evidence support an independent association?: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012;125(20):2520-44.
• Federation FDIWD Five key messages to help policymakers integrate oral health into health system responses. Geneva, Switzerland:  2021. " https://fdiworlddental.org/five-key-messages-to-help-policymaker-with-oral-health-integration ". Accessed 18 May 2023.
• National Institutes of Health. Oral Health Care in America: Advances and Challenges. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; 2021.
• Kapila YL. Oral health’s inextricable connection to systemic health: Special populations bring to bear multimodal relationships and factors connecting periodontal disease to systemic diseases and conditions. Periodontology 2000 2021;87(1):11-16.
• Wang J, Yang X, Zou X, et al. Relationship between periodontal disease and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Periodontal Research 2020;55(5):581-93.
• Sanz M, Marco del Castillo A, Jepsen S, et al. Periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases: Consensus report. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2020;47(3):268-88.
• Choi H, Dey AK, Priyamvara A, et al. Role of Periodontal Infection, Inflammation and Immunity in Atherosclerosis. Current Problems in Cardiology 2021;46(3):100638.
• Kwack K, Zhang L, Sohn J, et al. Novel preosteoclast populations in obesity-associated periodontal disease. Journal of dental research 2021:00220345211040729.
• Bugueno IM, El-Ghazouani FZ, Batool F, et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis triggers the shedding of inflammatory endothelial microvesicles that act as autocrine effectors of endothelial dysfunction. Scientific reports 2020;10(1):1-12.
• Froum SJ, Hengjeerajaras P, Liu K-Y, et al. The Link Between Periodontitis/Peri-implantitis and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 2020;40(6).
• Ma K, Hasturk H, Carreras I, et al. Dementia and the risk of periodontitis: a population-based cohort study. Journal of dental research 2021:00220345211037220.
• Larvin H, Kang J, Aggarwal VR, Pavitt S, Wu J. Risk of incident cardiovascular disease in people with periodontal disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical and experimental dental research 2021;7(1):109-22.
• Zemedikun D, Chandan J, Raindi D, et al. The burden of chronic diseases associated with periodontal diseases: A retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data. BMJ open 2021.
• Hamza SA, Asif S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Bokhari SAH. Emerging role of epigenetics in explaining relationship of periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases. Diseases 2021;9(3):48.
• Campos JR, Martins CC, Faria SFS, et al. Association between components of metabolic syndrome and periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Investigations 2022;26(9):5557-74.
• Velioğlu EM, Aydındoğan S, Hakkı SS. Metabolic Syndrome and Periodontal Disease. Current Oral Health Reports 2023;10(2):43-51.
• Borgnakke WS, Glick M, Genco RJ. Periodontitis: the canary in the coal mine. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144(7):764-6.
• Friedewald VE, Kornman KS, Beck JD, et al. The American Journal of Cardiology and Journal of Periodontology Editors' Consensus: periodontitis and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2009;104(1):59-68.
• Eke PI, Thornton-Evans GO, Wei L, et al. Periodontitis in US Adults. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2018;149(7):576-88.e6.
• Genco RJ, Sanz M. Clinical and public health implications of periodontal and systemic diseases: An overview. Periodontology 2000 2020;83(1):7-13.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heart Disease Facts.  2017. " https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm ". Accessed 15 May 2018.
• Chaffee BW, Couch ET, Vora MV, Holliday RS. Oral and periodontal implications of tobacco and nicotine products. Periodontology 2000 2021;87(1):241-53.
• National Cancer Institute. Risk Factors for Cancer.  2015. " https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk ". Accessed 15 May 2018.
• Bernabe E, MacRitchie H, Longbottom C, Pitts NB, Sabbah W. Birth Weight, Breastfeeding, Maternal Smoking and Caries Trajectories. J Dent Res 2017;96(2):171-78.
• Ganesan SM, Joshi V, Fellows M, et al. A tale of two risks: smoking, diabetes and the subgingival microbiome. ISME J 2017;11(9):2075-89.
• Watt RG, Serban S. Multimorbidity: a challenge and opportunity for the dental profession. British Dental Journal 2020;229(5):282-86.
• Pihlstrom BL, Hodges JS, Michalowicz B, Wohlfahrt JC, Garcia RI. Promoting oral health care because of its possible effect on systemic disease is premature and may be misleading. J Am Dent Assoc 2018;149(6):401-03.
• Nasseh K, Vujicic M, Glick M. The Relationship between Periodontal Interventions and Healthcare Costs and Utilization. Evidence from an Integrated Dental, Medical, and Pharmacy Commercial Claims Database. Health Economics 2017;26(4):519-27.
• Solowiej-Wedderburn J, Ide M, Pennington M. Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical periodontal therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2017;44(7):700-07.
• Thakkar-Samtani M, Heaton LJ, Kelly AL, et al. Periodontal treatment associated with decreased diabetes mellitus-related treatment costs: An analysis of dental and medical claims data. The Journal of the American Dental Association 2023;154(4):283-92.e1.
• Patel J, Prasad R, Bryant C, et al. Multiple sclerosis and its impact on dental care. British Dental Journal 2021;231(5):281-86.
• Kane SF. The effects of oral health on systemic health. Gen Dent 2017;65(6):30-34.
• Chapple IL, Genco R, working group 2 of the joint EFPAAPw. Diabetes and periodontal diseases: consensus report of the Joint EFP/AAP Workshop on Periodontitis and Systemic Diseases. J Periodontol 2013;84(4 Suppl):S106-12.
• Sanz M, Ceriello A, Buysschaert M, et al. Scientific evidence on the links between periodontal diseases and diabetes: Consensus report and guidelines of the joint workshop on periodontal diseases and diabetes by the International Diabetes Federation and the European Federation of Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45(2):138-49.
• Ziukaite L, Slot DE, Van der Weijden FA. Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus in People Clinically Diagnosed with Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Epidemiologic Studies. J Clin Periodontol 2017.
• Di Domenico GL, Minoli M, Discepoli N, Ambrosi A, de Sanctis M. Effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycemic control: An umbrella review. Acta Diabetologica 2023;60(1):101-13.
• Larvin H, Kang J, Aggarwal V, Pavitt S, Wu J. Systemic multimorbidity clusters in people with periodontitis. Journal of Dental Research 2022;101(11):1335-42.
• Oh TJ, Eber R, Wang HL. Periodontal diseases in the child and adolescent. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29(5):400-10.
• Pari A, Ilango P, Subbareddy V, Katamreddy V, Parthasarthy H. Gingival diseases in childhood - a review. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(10):ZE01-4.
• Kumar A, Masamatti SS, Virdi MS. Periodontal diseases in children and adolescents: a clinician's perspective part 2. Dent Update 2012;39(9):639-42, 45-6, 49-52.
• Meyle J, Gonzales JR. Influences of systemic diseases on periodontitis in children and adolescents. Periodontol 2000 2001;26:92-112.
• Berglundh T, Wellfelt B, Liljenberg B, Lindhe J. Some local and systemic immunological features of prepubertal periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28(2):113-20.
• Califano JV, Research S, Therapy Committee American Academy of P. Position paper: periodontal diseases of children and adolescents. J Periodontol 2003;74(11):1696-704.
• Al-Ghutaimel H, Riba H, Al-Kahtani S, Al-Duhaimi S. Common periodontal diseases of children and adolescents. Int J Dent 2014;2014:850674.

Oral Health Topics

• Cancer (Head and Neck)
• Nutrition and Oral Health

ADA Clinical Evaluators (ACE) Panel Report

• Oral-systemic health considerations in dental settings

ADA Catalog

The patient education brochures listed below can be ordered online through the ADA Catalog :

• Healthy Mouth, Healthy Body: Making the Connection (W203)
• Diabetes and Your Oral Health (W604)

Professional Resources

Search JADA for articles related to systemic health

ADA Library Services

American Academy of Periodontology

• Gum Disease and other Systemic Diseases

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Oral Health Policies & Recommendations (The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry)

• Classification of Periodontal Diseases in Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Individuals with Special Health Care Needs
• Periodontal Diseases of Children and Adolescents
• Guidelines for Periodontal Therapy
• Treatment of Plaque-induced Gingivitis, Chronic Periodontitis, and Other Clinical Conditions

National Institutes of Health

• Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges

Topic last updated: September 11, 2023

Prepared by:

Research Services and Scientific Information, ADA Library & Archives.

Content on the Oral Health Topics section of ADA.org is for informational purposes only. Content is neither intended to nor does it establish a standard of care or the official policy or position of the ADA; and is not a substitute for professional judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment. ADA is not responsible for information on external websites linked to this website.

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

How to Write a Dental Hygiene Personal Statement Essay

Table of Contents

A dental hygiene personal statement essay is a lengthy, well-researched work detailing the candidate’s desired experiences, talents, and goals.

The essay helps the admissions committee evaluate your education, employment experience, and character before making a decision.

When applying to dental hygiene or dental therapy programs, the personal statement can make or break your chances of being accepted. This article explains how to write a compelling personal statement and gives an essay for your inspiration.

What is a Dental Hygiene Personal Statement Essay?

A personal statement essay for dental hygiene shows your background and other parts of your life that have influenced your career choice .

It includes information about your formal training, professional experience, volunteer work, extracurricular pursuits, interests, and aspirations.

To succeed in writing your statement for dental hygiene, it is crucial to be truthful. Whenever you find yourself at a loss for words, try posing the following queries:

• Why do I want to get a degree in dental hygiene?
• How will this change my life when I graduate from dental hygiene school?
• Why pick dental hygiene over others?

10 Guidelines for writing a Compelling Dental Hygiene Personal Statement

These steps are meant to assist in shaping your statement to be convincing. Use it as a guideline to write an effective personal statement.

1. Pique their Curiosity

The purpose of the personal statement is to pique the curiosity of the admissions’ committee. You’re hoping that a meeting with them will result in an interview. Show them rather than tell them who you are.

Share some personal tales that show your optimism, attention to detail, confidence, empathy, manual dexterity, and communication abilities.

2. Write Early and Often

Your statement will be stronger if you begin working on it early. You must give yourself enough time to think through what you want to include and how you want to organize the content. You should write as many drafts as possible to create a framework for the final draft.

Get going at least six months before the target date. Your writing abilities will determine your statement preparation time. You must sit down and devote time to brainstorming, outlining, and drafting.

3. Think It Through and Make a Plan

Where do I even begin? Start by considering what you want to say in your statement of purpose. In your resume, highlight the experiences that best illustrate who you are and why you want to work in this field. Choose an interesting first sentence that intrigues the reader and makes them want to learn more about you.

To get the creative juices flowing, here is a quick reference guide:

• Remember to jot down significant milestones and life lessons that helped shape your route to a dental career.
• Write out your best qualities and the things that inspire you.
• Reflect on the significant individuals in your life and how they have influenced you.
• Besides school, what other interests or experiences have helped shape your decision to become a dentist?
• For a career in dental hygiene and therapy, what attributes in yourself make you a strong candidate?

4. Proofread Your Work

Be sure to run a spell and grammar check. Grammatical errors must be avoided at all costs.

Avoid using the future tense too often, and ensure the past tense is used consistently. Use formal language and avoid “I’m” and “don’t.”

5. Ensure its Well-Structured

Your statement must paint a vivid picture of your passions and skills. Avoid employing a plethora of different subjects in your statement. This is because it can make it harder to understand who you are.

Take care to ensure that your paragraphs logically lead into one another. It’s challenging to convey your unique personality when limited to a few characters but do your best.

6. Prove it with Examples

Instead of saying it, prove it. Remember that you will be required to provide evidence for all the claims you make in your statement.

Don’t just write, “I’m fantastic with people and always try to make them happy.” Instead, “During my volunteer work, I realized how much I enjoy interacting with others. My communication skills will assist me in future patient interactions.”

7. Tell the Truth

Try to tell the truth. The best policy is honesty, so keep that in mind. Do not, under any circumstances, plagiarize a personal statement, whether it be from the Internet or a friend. Every school has a method to verify that your statement has not been plagiarized.

8. Show Passion

Have a positive attitude toward regular dental care and any necessary dental treatment. Dental schools across the country are looking for eager and committed students.

You should demonstrate that you have used your time and initiative to prepare for university by accumulating as much relevant experience as possible. It shows that you’re willing to take the initiative, which is what will set you apart.

9. Strive to Be Distinct

Be noticeable. Discuss your accomplishments and how they set you apart from other applicants. If you want to study dental hygiene and treatment, discuss how your volunteer or part-time work has prepared you.

Universities care more about your personality than your dental credentials. They want to hire people who will do whatever it takes to get noticed. So, don’t be afraid to discuss your accomplishments and share your pride. It’s fine to bring up dental-related things, but don’t limit yourself there.

10. Have Your Personal Statement Reviewed

It’s a good idea to have someone else read over your statement. Having someone else look over your work, whether a friend, parent, or teacher, might help you see things from a new angle.

It would be beneficial to reach out to someone presently enrolled in a Dental Hygiene school and have them provide feedback.

Dental Hygiene Personal Statement Essay

This INK essay shows how to write a compelling dental hygiene personal statement. Use this essay to help you determine your unique selling points!

I have always been passionate about dental hygiene ever since I was a child. Growing up with cavities and bad oral health made me understand the importance of proper care. This has driven my commitment to promote preventative strategies to help others maintain healthy teeth and gums.

My personal experience has instilled in me an empathic approach to dentistry, allowing me to better connect with patients on a human level.

I am highly knowledgeable when it comes to dental knowledge and can easily converse with both patients and colleagues alike. In addition, I possess an acute attention to detail which helps ensure that all procedures are carried out safely and correctly.

Furthermore, I can keep abreast of new advancements in the field by utilizing advanced technologies such as digital x-rays or intraoral cameras.

My expertise, empathy, and enthusiasm will prove invaluable to any prospective employer. I would be delighted to join your team of skilled professionals to develop my skills further and contribute to improving the quality of life.

A dental hygiene personal statement essay is a compelling statement of your strengths and interests . Keep it concise and clear without missing a detail.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Write Personal Statement Articles

How to draft meaningful length of law school personal statement.

Are you confused on how to write a law school personal statement? One of the essential elements of your application…

• Write Personal Statement

Effective History and International Relations Personal Statement to Try

Are you considering studying history and international relations? Or you may be curious about what a degree in this field…

Guide to Quality Global Management Personal Statement

Are you applying for a global management program and want to stand out from the crowd? A well-written personal statement…

How to Draft Better Examples of Personal Statements for Residency

Achieving a residency can be a massive accomplishment for any aspiring medical professional. To secure your spot in one of…

Tips for Drafting a Free Example of Personal History Statement

A personal history statement can be crucial to many applications, from university admissions to job search processes. This blog will…

Writing Compelling Dietetic Internship Personal Statement

Applying for a dietetic internship is a rigorous process and requires submitting a personal statement, which is an essential part…

• Open access
• Published: 04 May 2024

Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study

• Mattia Manfredini 1 , 2 ,
• Matteo Pellegrini 1 , 2 ,
• Marta Rigoni 1 ,
• Valentina Veronesi 1 ,
• Mario Beretta 1 , 2 ,
• Carlo Maiorana 1 , 2 &
• Pier Paolo Poli 1 , 2  

BMC Oral Health volume  24 , Article number:  531 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

31 Accesses

Metrics details

Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) is a comprehensive concept covering daily comfort, self-esteem, and satisfaction with oral health, including functional, psychological, and social aspects, as well as pain experiences. Despite abundant research on OHRQoL related to oral diseases and hygiene, there is limited data on how patients perceive changes after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. This study aimed to evaluate OHRQoL and aesthetic perception using OHIP-14 and VAS scales respectively, before (baseline-TB), during (provisional prostheses-TP), and after (definitive prostheses-TD) implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. It also explored the impact of biological sex, substitution numbers, and aesthetic interventions on OHRQoL and VAS scores, along with changes in OHIP-14 domains.

A longitudinal prospective single-center observational cohort study was conducted with patients requiring implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. Quality of life relating to dental implants was assessed through the Italian version of Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (IOHIP-14), which has a summary score from 14 to 70. Patients’ perceived aesthetic was analyzed through a VAS scale from 0 to 100. Generalized Linear Mixed Effect Models, Linear Mixed Effect Models, and Friedman test analyzed patient responses.

99 patients (35 males, 64 females) aged 61–74, receiving various prosthetic interventions, were enrolled. Both provisional and definitive prosthetic interventions significantly decreased the odds of a worse quality of life compared to baseline, with odds ratios of 0.04 and 0.01 respectively. VAS scores increased significantly after both interventions, with estimated increases of 30.44 and 51.97 points respectively. Patient-level variability was notable, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.43. While biological sex, substitution numbers, and aesthetic interventions didn’t significantly affect VAS scores, OHRQoL domains showed significant changes post-intervention.

Conclusions

These findings support the effectiveness of implant-prosthetic interventions in improving the quality of life and perceived aesthetics of patients undergoing oral rehabilitation. They have important implications for clinical practice, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment approaches to optimize patient outcomes and satisfaction in oral health care.

Peer Review reports

Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) assessment related to implant-prosthetic rehabilitation is a phenomenon that has emerged since the early 2000s [ 1 ]. Slade [ 2 ] identified the change in health perception from the simple absence of disease and infirmity to complete physical, mental, and social well-being, echoing the original World Health Organization (WHO) definition [ 3 ]. This change took place in the second half of the 20th century and was assessed by WHO as the key issue in the conception of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and later OHRQoL, as a “silent revolution” in the values of industrialized societies from materialistic values focusing on economic stability and security to values centered on self-determination and self-actualization [ 4 ].

In the 1970s, Davis [ 5 ] stated how, apart from pain and life-threatening cancers, other oral diseases have no impact on social life, being related only to cosmetic problems.

Subsequently, the concept of OHRQoL began to evolve. There was growing evidence that oral diseases could also have a significant impact on social roles. The clinical indicators used in diagnosing and monitoring oral diseases such as dental caries or periodontal disease were not entirely adequate to capture the new concept of health declared by WHO, particularly aspects of mental and social well-being [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. As a result, researchers began to develop alternative methods, particularly patient-completed questionnaires, that would assess the physical, psychological, and social impact of oral conditions on an individual [ 10 ].

Thus, the OHRQoL becomes “a multidimensional construct” that reflects people’s comfort when eating, sleeping, and engaging in social interactions, their self-esteem, as well as their satisfaction concerning oral health [ 11 ]. OHRQoL is associated with functional factors, psychological factors, social factors, and experience of pain or discomfort [ 12 ].

Information on quality of life makes it possible to assess feelings and perceptions at the individual level, increasing opportunities for communication between professionals and patients, improving understanding of the impact of oral health on the subject’s and family’s lives, and measuring the clinical outcomes of the interventions performed [ 13 ].

In the scientific literature, to truly define OHRQoL, many questionnaires have been created to quantitatively assess the actual improvement of quality of life about oral health. To this end, the European Commission suggests using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) as a tool to assess OHRQoL, as it has been well designed, extensively tested, has longitudinal and discriminative validity, and focuses on psychological and behavioral issues [ 14 ]. The original extended version (OHIP-49) contained 49 items and was based on a conceptual framework regarding oral health and its functional and psychological consequences [ 15 ]. A reduced questionnaire was designed to simplify the original version: the OHIP-14 [ 16 ]. The latter is simple to use, tested with positive results for psychometric qualities (validity and reliability) in several studies and different populations, sensitive to the measurement of clinical effects of treatment, with measurement properties comparable to the OHIP-49 [ 16 ].

The evaluation of OHRQoL in implant rehabilitation is important for several reasons [ 17 , 18 ]: (1) patient orientation, implant rehabilitation aims to enhance the functionality and aesthetics of the patient (the assessment of OHRQoL involves the patient’s perspective, enabling an understanding of their views on oral health and overall well-being. This aids in tailoring the treatment plan based on the patient’s needs and expectations); (2) measurement of psychosocial impact, dental implants not only affect masticatory function but also impact the patient’s aesthetic appearance and self-confidence (the evaluation of OHRQoL allows for the measurement of the psychosocial effects of implant rehabilitation, including aspects such as self-esteem, social interaction, and overall satisfaction); (3) treatment efficiency evaluation, OHRQoL can serve as an indicator of the effectiveness of implant treatment (measuring the change in oral health-related quality of life before and after treatment provides crucial information on the success of the procedure and patient satisfaction); (4) informed clinical decision-making, the assessment of OHRQoL can assist oral health professionals in making informed clinical decisions (understanding the treatment’s impact on the patient’s quality of life helps formulate more accurate and tailored treatment plans based on the individual’s specific needs); (5) patient-dentist communication, discussing OHRQoL facilitates communication between the patient and oral health professionals, establishing realistic expectations regarding treatment outcomes (it enables the patient to be more involved in decisions related to their oral health).

Analyzing the current success criteria applicable in the assessment of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, in addition to clinical criteria such as implant integration, absence of pain or discomfort, effective and comfortable chewing, gingival health, long-term implant stability, and maintenance of the surrounding bone structure over time, criteria such as aesthetic appearance and patient satisfaction are key and equally important criteria alongside clinical criteria [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Furthermore, considering the importance of aesthetic evaluation, two methods described in the literature are utilized for its assessment [ 22 , 23 ]: White Esthetic Score (WES) and Pink Esthetic Score (PES). WES is an aesthetic evaluation system employed to assess the beauty of anterior dental elements, including implant crowns. It considers various factors such as shape, size, position, coloration, and texture of the dental crown. Its purpose is to provide an objective assessment of the aesthetic appearance, enabling dental professionals to evaluate the aesthetic quality of anterior dental restorations. PES is a specifically designed evaluation system to assess the aesthetics of the gingival area, particularly around dental implants. It considers parameters such as gum color, shape and size of the gingival tissue, presence of gingival recessions, and the harmonious transition between the implant restoration and the surrounding tissue. The goal of PES is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the aesthetics of the gingiva around dental implants, thereby contributing to achieving optimal aesthetic results in the gingival area. Both systems, WES and PES, are valuable tools for evaluating the overall aesthetics of implant restorations. The combined use of these approaches allows for a comprehensive assessment that takes into consideration both the appearance of dental crowns and the health and aesthetics of the gingiva surrounding the implants [ 22 , 23 ].

In conclusion, the evaluation of OHRQoL is essential in implant rehabilitation as it provides a comprehensive understanding of the treatment’s impact on the patient’s life, contributing to delivering more personalized, effective, and well-being-oriented care.

To date, several studies have assessed patient satisfaction and OHRQoL regarding implant-prosthetic rehabilitation such as impact on quality of life in overdentures (a type of removable denture resting on the remaining natural teeth, teeth root, or dental implants) retained by mini-dental implants (MDIs), the evaluation of patient experiences with implant treatments performed under general anesthesia, the assessment of tissue stability and aesthetic perception in single immediate implants in the esthetic zone, the analysis of variations in dental anxiety, aesthetic perception, and OHRQoL after anterior implant treatment, the evaluation of patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications of different types of maxillary and mandibular prostheses, the comparison between fixed prostheses supported by zygomatic implants and all-on-four prostheses, the investigation of changes in phonetics, satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with maxillary overdentures, the comparison of satisfaction and quality of life among different types of prostheses, patient-reported outcome measures of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures, and the comparison between fixed and overdenture prostheses supported by zygomatic implants [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. However, few studies to date have compared changes in OHRQoL from temporary implant-supported prostheses to permanent implant-supported prostheses, whether crowns, bridges, overdentures, and Toronto-type prostheses i.e., complete fixed prostheses with a flange, replacing up to 12 teeth per arch, fixed by abutments on dental implants using the immediate-load implant technique or, in more traditional dentistry, with deferred-load implant dentistry [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

Therefore, the primary aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess OHRQoL perceived by the patient through OHIP-14 questionnaire before (baseline), during (provisional prostheses), and after (definitive prostheses) implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, also considering patients’ and interventions’ characteristics.

The secondary aims were to assess patients’ perceived aesthetics through VAS scale before (baseline), during (provisional prosthesis), and after (definitive prosthesis) implant-prosthetic rehabilitation; to explore the impact of interventions on specific domains of OHIP-14, as measured by changes in scores across seven domains.

Study design

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, No. 864_2021 (Trial ID 2444) and was held according to the Helsinki statements. The study follows the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines shown in Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) [ 38 ]. A prospective single-center observational cohort study was conducted with patients who required implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, recruited from the Implant Center for Edentulism and Jawbone Atrophies, Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Dental Unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Italy), and performed by the same oral surgeon and prosthodontist, both with more than 15 years of experience. The volunteers were recruited between September 2021 and June 2022. All recruited subjects were informed about the objectives and study design, and those who consented to participate signed a written informed consent form.

Study population

The study population consisted of all fully or partially edentulous patients who presented for a visit to the Implant Center for Edentulism and Jawbone Atrophies requesting implant-prosthetic rehabilitation, and who met the eligibility criteria adopted at the same department in compliance with current clinical practice to be able to place and rehabilitate dental implants safely and predictably.

Eligibility criteria

In this prospective study, all patients who received implant-prosthetic rehabilitation were consecutively enrolled. Criteria for the selection of candidate patients to receive implants generally included the following: male or female patients, partially toothed or edentulous, aged ≥ 18 years, in good general health through the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale, i.e., ASA I or II, in need of implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in the anterior and/or posterior sectors of the maxillary upper jaw and/or mandible, with adequate oral hygiene (Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S) score [ 39 ] ≤ 1.2 and Modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mSBI) [ 40 ] score 0), able to understand the nature of the proposed questionnaire fully, and able to sign the informed consent form. Additional exclusion criteria-local, systemic, and related to the patient’s habits and lifestyle-were adopted on a case-by-case basis according to current clinical practice.

Endpoints and survey description

For the assessment of the patient’s perceived OHRQoL before (baseline–TB), during (provisional prostheses–TP), and after treatment (definitive prostheses –TD) by implant-prosthetic rehabilitations, a single questionnaire was used, given to the patient at TB, TP, and TD. The questionnaire was based on the OHIP-14, which consisted of 14 questions divided into 7 domain items: functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability, and handicap [ 16 ]. Table S2 (Supplementary Material) shows the OHIP-14 questionnaire.

In the present study, the Italian version, IOHIP-14 was used, which had been validated and had good equivalence to its original OHIP-14 version [ 41 ]. For each of the 14 questions corresponding to the 7 domains related to a particular aspect of perceived oral health status, the subject responded by choosing the most appropriate one from among 5 response levels, with a score between 1 and 5 (1 = never; 2 = hardly never; 3 = occasionally; 4 = fairly often; 5 = very often). Hence, a domain score ranges from 2 to 10 points: scores 2–4, minimal impact; scores 5–7, moderate impact; scores 8–10, high impact. The OHIP-14 scores, ranging from 14 to 70, were computed by summing the ordinal values assigned to the 14 items, where higher OHIP-14 scores signified poorer (43–56, significant impact; 57–70, high impact) and lower scores signified improved OHRQoL (14–28, minimal impact; 29–42, moderate impact) [ 16 ].

Patients’ perceived aesthetic was analyzed through a VAS scale from 0 to 100: scores 0–20 (very low score) - poor aesthetic perception or experience; scores 21–40 (low score) - negative aesthetic perception or experience; scores 41–60 (medium score) - moderately negative or neutral aesthetic perception or experience; scores 61–80 (high score) - positive aesthetic perception or experience; scores 81–100 (very high score) - excellent aesthetic perception or experience [ 42 ].

For the primary endpoint, OHRQoL summary score obtained by each patient on the 14 questions of the OHIP-14 questionnaire at TB, TP, and TD was calculated.

For the secondary endpoints, patients’ perceived aesthetics through VAS score obtained by each patient at TB, TP, and TD was evaluated; OHRQoL summary score and patients’ aesthetic perception by VAS score were compared with biological sex, number of substitutions, and intervention in the aesthetic areas (between second upper premolars, 1.5 and 2.5) [ 43 ]; potential changes in the seven domains of OHIP-14 from TB, to TP and TD were analyzed.

There were no follow-up visits after TD. The study duration was variable according to the patient, being related to the duration of the patient’s planned treatment.

Planned visits and operating protocol

Each patient was enrolled in the present protocol after anamnestic framing and acceptance of the treatment plan. For the conduct of the present study, three visits were required for the delivery/collection of questionnaires: an initial visit (TB), a follow-up visit 3 months after completion of provisional implant-prosthetic rehabilitation (TP), and a follow-up visit 3 months after completion of definitive implant-prosthetic rehabilitation (TD).

During the first visit (TB), as per practice, the medical history was collected, and a clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed to verify the patient’s eligibility for implant-prosthetic rehabilitation according to the eligibility criteria. Patients who met these requirements and agreed to be rehabilitated according to the planned treatment plan were offered to participate in the present study for OHRQoL evaluation explaining the rationale and operative protocol. Patients who agreed to participate in the present study were given the questionnaire for evaluation of OHRQoL at TB, and the rest of the protocol forms. The questionnaire and protocol forms, completed by the patient, were collected at the next visit.

Each patient followed the accepted implant-prosthetic treatment pathway discussed during the formulation of the treatment plan according to current clinical practice, with no difference from the treatment pathway that may have been proposed if the patient’s consent to be enrolled in this protocol was denied.

Regarding surgical procedures, when a three-dimensional bone is sufficient to allow guided insertion of one or more implants, our approach has focused on preparing full-thickness flaps with submerged healing of the implant for a period ranging from 3 to 6 months, depending on the arch involved (mandible or maxilla). In cases where bone regeneration is deemed necessary, our practice involves the adoption of personalized guided bone regeneration (GBR) techniques, ensuring a targeted approach to the specifics of each case. The distinguishing feature of our approach lies in the guided prosthetic placement of implants, a crucial criterion for assessing the need for bone regeneration procedures.

Regarding the prosthetic phase, the management of single crowns and implant-supported bridges involved separate two-stage procedures. It is noteworthy that type-Toronto prostheses can be loaded immediately, provided primary implant stability is achieved at a minimum of 35 N/cm. Alternatively, a staggered approach with submerged healing is used, with an implementation period ranging from 3 to 6 months depending on the dental arch. During this phase, management of removable complete dentures is critical to distribute the forces on the implants adequately.

After completing their provisional and definitive implant-prosthetic rehabilitations at 3 months (TP and TD, respectively), patients were given the same questionnaire they received initially (TB) to evaluate their perceived oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). They were asked to return the completed questionnaire within 7 days on both occasions.

All implant-prosthetic rehabilitations were performed by the same oral surgeon and prosthetist, both with more than 15 years of experience. Two other different oral surgeons from the same group of dentists previously reported performed the collection of research data.

Data collection

Data on patients included in the study were collected in dedicated data collection forms. The source documents were outpatient medical records in which all data on the treatment plan, interventions, prosthetic steps, and follow-up visits were recorded. The data acquired from the questionnaires and medical records needed for the study were transferred and recorded in an electronic database (Excel, Microsoft Corporation).

Sample size calculation

We employed dedicated software (PASS Sample Size Software, NCSS LCC) for sample size calculation. The sample size was calculated from pilot data obtained from 20 questionnaires (20 patients). The results of these 20 patients were not included in the protocol. Assuming a positive response to perceived quality of life, as indicated by an OHIP-14 questionnaire score ranging from 14 to 25, and considering our previous conversation, we established that 40% of participants would exhibit positive responses during baseline assessment (TB). We anticipated this proportion to rise to 60% during definitive prostheses assessment (TD) for the same individuals. To maintain a first-type error rate of 5% and achieve an 80% power in detecting a difference in positive response rates between TB and TD, we determined a minimum sample size of 100 patients for our study.

Statistical methods

Interval scale variables were summarized as median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were summarized as absolute and relative frequencies. Both patient- and prosthesis-level variables were collected. Since the outcome variables of interest OHRQoL and VAS are patient-level variables, the analyses were carried out using patient-levels variables, namely biological sex, age, intervention(s) considered to be in an aesthetic area, and the dichotomized number of implants (up to 3 versus more than 3). Prosthesis-level variables are used for descriptive purposes only (i.e., for describing the sample). In the analyses, 1 patient with only Toronto-type prostheses was excluded because it is uncommon while retaining patients with Toronto-type prostheses and simultaneously crowns/bridges on implants for a patient to have only Toronto-type prostheses because the responses are by patient. To initially explore the data, the non-parametric Friedman test was employed to identify any overall trends or significant differences across interventions (TB to TD) and subgroups (e.g., males and females). The Friedman test was applied both to the final OHRQoL and VAS scores and the sub-domains in the questionnaire. For the total OHRQoL and VAS scores, the Friedman tests served as preliminary insight before a Generalized Linear Mixed Effect Model (GLMM) and Linear Mixed Effect Model (LMM) were employed for studying the total OHRQoL and VAS scores, respectively. While, for the domains, the Friedman tests were employed, with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, as exploratory analysis for future work.

For the total OHRQoL score variable only values up to 42 were recorded. Therefore, it was dichotomized using the groups indicated in Sect.  2.4 , namely minimal impact versus moderate impact. A random intercept only, the patient, GLMM was employed to investigate the effect of intervention stages, demographic characteristics, and procedures variables on the total OHRQoL score. Specifically, other than the intervention stage, biological sex, dichotomized age (patients younger than 65 years were considered young , patients 65 years old or older were considered old ), the general area of the interventions (aesthetic versus non-aesthetic), and the dichotomized number of substitutions (up to 3 versus more than 3) variables were considered. Alternative models, i.e., with a lower number of covariates (but never discarding the intervention/time variable) were considered and compared by mean of the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). However, since there was no significant improvement in the AIC, the complete model was retained. Analogously, an intercept only LMM was used to study the effects of the same variables on the VAS score.

All the analyses were obtained using R [ 44 ], version 4.1.2 (2021-11-01). The GLMM and LMM models estimates were obtained through lme4 package (version 3.1.3) [ 45 ].

Table  1 reports a summary of the characteristics of patients and implant. A total of 99 patients (35 males and 64 females, median age 67 (61–74) years) rehabilitated with 26 single crowns, 127 implant-supported bridges, and 2 Toronto-type prostheses were enrolled. Regarding number of implants, 29 single crowns and 116 implant-supported bridges were performed with ≤ 3 implants; instead, 13 implant-supported bridges and 2 Toronto-type prostheses were performed with > 3 implants. Patients’ responses are summarized in Table  2 .

OHRQoL summary score

Table  3 shows the parameters estimated from the GLMM model for the OHRQoL summary score. The OHRQoL summary score is significantly affected by the intervention steps. Compared to the baseline, the odds of a worse quality of life, specifically from minimal to moderate impact of oral conditions on patients’ well-being, after the interventions for the provisional and definitive prosthesis/es were significantly lower, with odds ratios of 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01–0.18, p-value < 0.001) and 0.01 (CI: 0.00–0.05, p-value < 0.001), respectively. Other predictors, such as biological sex, with an odds ratio of 2.32 (CI: 0.45–11.88, p-value = 0.312), the number of substitutions with an odds ratio of 0.89 (CI: 0.18–4.31, p-value = 0.880), and intervention(s) in an aesthetic area did not reach show statistical significance.

Table  4 reports the parameters estimated from the LMM model for the VAS score. The model shows that the use of provisional prostheses led to a significant increase in VAS scores compared to baseline, with an estimated increase of 30.44 points (CI: 26.60–34.29, p-value < 0.001). Similarly, the use of definitive prostheses was associated with an increase estimated at 51.97 points (CI: 48.12–55.81, p-value < 0.001) compared to baseline. Other predictors, such as biological sex and the number of substitutions, as well as the intervention(s) in aesthetic areas, did not show statistically significant effects on the VAS score. The estimated effect for biological sex was 4.83 points (CI: -1.13–10.79, p  = 0.112), for the number of substitutions was 0.88 points (CI: -4.93–6.69, p  = 0.766), and for the aesthetic area was 1.17 points (CI: -6.63–8.97, p  = 0.768). The random effects in the model, which account for individual variability among patients, were also significant. The patient-level variability was estimated at 140.89 (42.72%), contributing to an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.43. This indicates that 43% of the total variability in VAS scores can be attributed to differences between patients.

OHIP-14 domains

Preliminary results on the variation of the domain-specific scores between intervention steps suggested that significant changes occurred in each of the seven domains when comparing the scores obtained at baseline, after the provisional prosthesis intervention, and after the definitive prosthesis intervention. The consistent significance across all domains indicates a systematic influence of the interventions on the domain-specific outcomes, with adjustments in prosthesis leading to measurable improvements or changes in each evaluated aspect. This observation serves as a preliminary result, highlighting areas for further in-depth exploration in future studies to better understand the specific impacts and implications of each intervention step on the domain-specific outcomes.

The present study aimed to evaluate the change in OHRQoL and aesthetic smile satisfaction using the VAS scale before, during, and after implant-prosthetic rehabilitation for missing teeth and to analyze the physical and psychological impact of dental implants and related prosthetic restorations. Potential variables influencing total OHRQoL, derived from the sum of the 7 domains, were considered.

Regarding the OHRQoL summary score, the implementation of provisional and definitive prostheses significantly reduced the odds of worsening patients’ quality of life, especially their general well-being compared with oral conditions. This is evidenced by the low values of odds ratios for both types of prostheses, indicating a moderate improvement in the oral health-related quality of life of patients. Additionally, it should be noted that, for the considered sample, there was a transition from moderate impact to minimal impact concerning OHRQoL. This had been partially confirmed by Winter et al. [ 46 ], who showed significant improvements in OHRQoL only with definitive prostheses.

However, other factors such as biological sex and number of replacements did not show statistical significance in the analysis. Interestingly, males had higher OHRQoL scores, suggesting a greater perception of the impact of oral health on quality of life than females, in contrast to a recent prospective study by Nickenig et al. [ 47 ], which showed equal OHRQoL scores between males and females. In addition, patients with more than 4 dental implants have higher mean OHRQoL scores, indicating a greater impact of dental implants on their quality of life, in contrast to the clinical trial by Passia et al. [ 48 ], which showed that OHRQoL increased regardless of the number of implants.

Regarding variation in OHIP-14 domains, preliminary results indicate significant changes in different domains of oral health-related quality of life after intervention with provisional and definitive dentures. This suggests that such interventions have a systemic influence on different aspects of patient’s well-being, with measurable improvements in each domain assessed.

VAS scores provide a significant increase with both provisional and definitive prostheses compared with the baseline value, concerning patients’ perceived aesthetics. This shows a subjective improvement in patients’ perceived aesthetic well-being after prosthetic surgery, with an estimated increase of 30.44 points for provisional prostheses and 51.97 points for definitive prostheses, in contrast with the consensus report of Feine et al. [ 49 ], who showed that the use of a provisional restoration did not affect patients’ evaluation of the aesthetics of permanent restorations on implant-supported FDPs.

However, other factors such as biological sex and number of substitutions did not show a significant impact on VAS scores. Although males had higher VAS scores on average this difference was not statistically significant, in agreement with the study by Wang et al. [ 50 ]. Also, the number of substitutions did not seem to influence VAS scores significantly.

Interventions in aesthetic areas appear to lead to a greater increase in VAS scores. Although this difference was not statistically significant, it might suggest that patients give more importance to the aesthetic aspects of prostheses, according to Baracat et al. [ 51 ].

Finally, the results also show significant individual variability among patients, with 43% of the total variation in VAS scores attributed to differences between patients. This underscores the importance of considering individual patient characteristics when interpreting results and planning treatment.

Future studies can be conducted to define the impact of selected restorative materials in implant-prosthetic rehabilitation (crowns, bridges, Toronto prostheses) on patient perception and their OHRQoL. Subsequent research endeavors could delve deeper into assessing the OHRQoL following implant-prosthetic rehabilitation in individuals with disabilities [ 52 ]. Such studies could explore the efficacy of different rehabilitation approaches, the impact of regular follow-up on OHRQoL outcomes, and the effectiveness of training programs in enhancing communication and care for this unique patient demographic. Finally, considering the growing emphasis on objective aesthetic evaluation criteria in dental research, it becomes imperative to advocate for future studies that delve deeper into the nuances of esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry. The existing literature provides a glimpse into the promising realm of single-tooth implant procedures in the anterior region, particularly those employing a flapless approach and custom-made zirconia-ceramic components [ 53 ].

Several limitations require consideration in the interpretation of the findings. This is a single-center study without a control group and a small sample size related to the number of variables: different types of prostheses and dental arch could have different results when analyzed together (multivariable model), particularly for mandibular full-arch prostheses. In addition, the number of prosthetic-Toronto-type rehabilitations performed is limited compared to prosthetic rehabilitations with single crown and implant-supported bridges. In addition, patients might have remembered the answers given to the OHIP-14 questionnaire and the VAS scale considering that they were applied three times in a short period. Another limitation is the short-term evaluation of the OHIP-14 (less than one year in total), which might differ from the patient’s perception after several years of dentures regarding OHRQoL, function, and any problems. The recruitment of partially or fully edentulous patients could be an influencing factor in the perceived patients’ responses. We used the 7-domain OHIP-14 questionnaire instead of the new concept of 4 dimensions of OHIP considering the need to use the validated questionnaire in the Italian language; finally, patients’ aesthetic perception was not assessed by PES and WES scores but only by VAS scale.

In conclusion, it can be said that implant-prosthetic rehabilitations lead to significant improvement in OHRQoL and smile aesthetic satisfaction in edentulous or partially edentulous patients. In general, regardless of the variables analyzed, reported substantial improvement in OHRQoL at both provisional and final prosthetic delivery, with significant differences from baseline. Thus, the provisional stage becomes critical not only to restore proper stomatognathic function but also to guide the healing of the peri-implant soft tissues to achieve an ideal architecture and anatomy at the time of delivery of the final prosthesis.

The change in OHRQoL is accompanied by a marked improvement in the patient’s aesthetic perception of the new smile similar in all intervals of the study. Finally, the OHRQoL could provide the basis for any dental health care program and should be considered an important element in the overall oral health program because it allows the focus to shift not only to clinical-radiographic variables but also to more subjective elements related to the patient himself to improve current clinical practice toward patients.

Data availability

The data are available for use upon request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

American Society of Anesthesiologists

Health-Related Quality of Life

Italian Oral Health Impact Profile-14

Interquartile Range

Modified Sulcus Bleeding Index

Simplified Oral Hygiene Index

Oral Health Impact Profile-14

Oral Health Impact Profile-49

Oral Health Impact Profile

Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Pink Esthetic Score

Standard Deviation

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology

Visual Analogue Scale

White Esthetic Score

World Health Organization

Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(4):390–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Slade GD. Oral health-related quality of life is important for patients, but what about populations? Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00718.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

WHO. (1948). World Health Organization Constitution. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf .

Gift HC, Atchison KA, Dayton CM. Conceptualizing oral health and oral health-related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:601–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00211-0 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Davis P. Compliance structures and the delivery of health care: the case of dentistry. Soc Sci Med. 1976;10:329–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-7856(76)90079-2 .

Cohen LK, Jag JD. Toward the formulation of sociodental indicators. Int J Health Serv. 1976;6:681–98. https://doi.org/10.2190/LE7A-UGBW-J3NR-Q992 .

Bennadi D, Reddy CVK. Oral health related quality of life. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2013;3:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.115700 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cushing AM, Sheiham A, Maizels J. Developing socio-dental indicators–the social impact of dental disease. Community Dent Health. 1986;3:3–17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3516317/ .

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ettinger RL. Oral disease and its effect on the quality of life. Gerodontics. 1987;3:103–6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3305120/ .

Al Shamrany M. Oral health-related quality of life: a broader perspective. East Mediterr Health J. 2006;12:894–901. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17333837/ .

Rockville MD. Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and Human Services 1999. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/101584932X120 .

Alvarez-Azaustre MP, Greco R, Llena C. Oral health-related quality of life in adolescents as measured with the Child-OIDP questionnaire: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:12995. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412995 .

Locker D, Miller Y. Evaluation of subjective oral health status indicators. J Public Health Dent Summer. 1994;54:167–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1994.tb01209.x .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Petersen P PE. The world oral health report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century–the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.2003.com122.x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health. 1994;11:3–11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8193981/ .

Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25:284–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x .

Gonçalves GSY, de Magalhães KMF, Rocha EP, Dos Santos PH, Assunção WG. Oral health-related quality of life and satisfaction in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported full dentures all-on-four concept: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04213-y .

Nickenig HJ, Terheyden H, Reich RH, Kreppel M, Linz C, Lentzen MP. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and implant therapy: a prospective multicenter study of preoperative, intermediate, and posttreatment assessment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2023.08.003 . S1010-5182(23)00138-5.

Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012;91:242–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511431252 .

Cosyn J, Thoma DS, Hämmerle CH, De Bruyn H. Esthetic assessments in implant dentistry: objective and subjective criteria for clinicians and patients. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73:193–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12163 .

Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997;8:161–72. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1997.080302.x .

Sanchez-Perez A, Nicolas-Silvente AI, Sanchez-Matas C, Molina-García S, Navarro-Cuellar C, Romanos GE. Primary stability and PES/WES evaluation for immediate implants in the aesthetic zone: a pilot clinical double-blind randomized study. Sci Rep. 2021;11:20024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99218-8 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Foong ALY, Tey VHS, Tan KBC, Teoh KH, Tan K. Esthetic evaluation of Anterior Implant-supported single crowns: a comparison between patients and dentists. Int J Prosthodont. 2022;35:396–404. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8032 .

Van Doorne L, Fonteyne E, Matthys C, Bronkhorst E, Meijer G, De Bruyn H. Longitudinal oral health-related quality of life in maxillary mini dental implant overdentures after 3 years in function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32(1):23–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13677 .

Matthys C, Vervaeke S, Besseler J, De Bruyn H. Five-year study of mandibular overdentures on stud abutments: clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and prosthetic maintenance-influence of bone resorption and implant position. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(9):940–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13501 .

Gjelvold B, Kisch J, Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Clinical and radiographic outcome following immediate loading and delayed loading of single-tooth implants: randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(3):549–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12479 .

Thoma DS, Strauss FJ, Mancini L, Gasser TJW, Jung RE. Minimal invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation at dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome measures. Periodontol 2000. 2023;91(1):182–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12465 .

Sidenö L, Hmaidouch R, Brandt J, von Krockow N, Weigl P. Satisfaction level in dental-phobic patients with implant-supported rehabilitation performed under general anaesthesia: a prospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0644-x .

Xie X, Zhang Z, Zhou J, Deng F. Changes of dental anxiety, aesthetic perception and oral health-related quality of life related to influencing factors of patients’ demographics after anterior implant treatment: a prospective study. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00486-y .

Fayek NH, Mahrous AI, Shaaban AAE, ELsyad MA. Patient satisfaction and prosthetic complications of Maxillary Implant overdentures Opposing Mandibular Implant overdentures with Bar, Telescopic, and Stud attachments: a 1-Year prospective trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(5):1044–54. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9610 .

Fernández-Ruiz JA, Sánchez-Siles M, Guerrero-Sánchez Y, Pato-Mourelo J, Camacho-Alonso F. Evaluation of quality of life and satisfaction in patients with fixed prostheses on zygomatic implants compared with the All-on-four Concept: a prospective Randomized Clinical Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3426. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073426 .

Raes F, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Clinical, aesthetic, and patient-related outcome of immediately loaded single implants in the anterior maxilla: a prospective study in extraction sockets, healed ridges, and grafted sites. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(6):819–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00438.x .

Raes S, Raes F, Cooper L, Giner Tarrida L, Vervaeke S, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Oral health-related quality of life changes after placement of immediately loaded single implants in healed alveolar ridges or extraction sockets: a 5-year prospective follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(6):662–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12858 .

Barroso-Panella A, Ortiz-Puigpelat O, Altuna-Fistolera P, Lucas-Taulé E, Hernández-Alfaro F, Gargallo-Albiol J. Evaluation of peri-implant tissue Stability and patient satisfaction after Immediate Implant Placement in the esthetic area: a 3-Year follow-up of an ongoing prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2020;40(5):731–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.4411 .

Fonteyne E, Van Doorne L, Becue L, Matthys C, Bronckhorst E, De Bruyn H. Speech evaluation during maxillary mini-dental implant overdenture treatment: a prospective study. J Oral Rehabil. 2019;46(12):1151–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12852 .

Sánchez-Torres A, Moragón-Rodríguez M, Agirre-Vitores A, Cercadillo-Ibarguren I, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Early complications and quality of life in patients with immediately loaded implant-supported maxillary partial rehabilitations: a prospective cohort study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2023;26158. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.26158 .

Van Doorne L, Vandeweghe S, Matthys C, Vermeersch H, Bronkhorst E, Meijer G, De Bruyn H. Five years clinical outcome of maxillary mini dental implant overdenture treatment: a prospective multicenter clinical cohort study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(5):829–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13233 .

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 .

Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral Hygiene Index. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964;68:7–13. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0034 .

Pontoriero R, Tonelli MP, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman SR, Lang NP. Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. A clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5(4):254–9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050409.x .

Corridore D, Campus G, Guerra F, Ripari F, Sale S, Ottolenghi L. Validation of the Italian version of the oral Health Impact Profile-14 (IOHIP-14). Ann Stomatol (Rome). 2014;4(3–4):239–43.

Google Scholar  

Burgueño-Barris G, Cortés-Acha B, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Aesthetic perception of single implants placed in the anterior zone. A cross-sectional study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21:e488–493. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.21155 .

Testori T, Weinstein T, Scutellà F, Wang HL, Zucchelli G. Implant placement in the esthetic area: criteria for positioning single and multiple implants. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77(1):176–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12211 .

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ .

Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 .

Winter A, Erdelt K, Giannakopoulos NN, Schmitter M, Edelhoff D, Liebermann A. Impact of different types of dental prostheses on oral-health-related quality of life: a prospective bicenter study of definitive and interim restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(4):441–7. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7180 .

Nickenig HJ, Terheyden H, Reich RH, Kreppel M, Linz C, Lentzen MP. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and implant therapy: a prospective multicenter study of preoperative, intermediate, and posttreatment assessment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2024;52(1):59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2023.08.003 .

Passia N, Chaar MS, Krummel A, Nagy A, Freitag-Wolf S, Ali S, Kern M. Influence of the number of implants in the edentulous mandible on chewing efficacy and oral health-related quality of life-A within-subject design study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(10):1030–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13984 .

Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, de Santana RB, Bjelke-Holtermann T, Bornstein MM, Braegger U, Cao O, Cordaro L, Eycken D, Fillion M, Gebran G, Huynh-Ba G, Joda T, Levine R, Mattheos N, Oates TW, Abd-Ul-Salam H, Santosa R, Shahdad S, Storelli S, Sykaras N, Treviño Santos A, Stephanie Webersberger U, Williams MAH, Wilson TG Jr, Wismeijer D, Wittneben JG, Yao CJ, Zubiria JPV. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):270–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13299 .

Wang Y, Bäumer D, Ozga AK, Körner AG, Bäumer A. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life 10 years after implant placement. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01381-3 .

Baracat LF, Teixeira AM, dos Santos MBF, de Cunha P, Marchini V. L. Patients’ expectations before and evaluation after dental implant therapy. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011;13:141–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00191.x .

D’Addazio G, Santilli M, Sinjari B, Xhajanka E, Rexhepi I, Mangifesta R, Caputi S. Access to Dental Care-A Survey from dentists, people with disabilities and caregivers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041556 .

Traini T, Pettinicchio M, Murmura G, Varvara G, Di Lullo N, Sinjari B, Caputi S. Esthetic outcome of an immediately placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implant restored with a custom-made zirconia-ceramic abutment and crown: a staged treatment. Quintessence Int;42:103–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was funded by Italian Ministry of Health — Current research IRCCS.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Via della Commenda 10, 20122, Milan, Italy

Mattia Manfredini, Matteo Pellegrini, Marta Rigoni, Valentina Veronesi, Mario Beretta, Carlo Maiorana & Pier Paolo Poli

Implant Center for Edentulism and Jawbone Atrophies, Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Dental Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Commenda 10, 20122, Milan, Italy

Mattia Manfredini, Matteo Pellegrini, Mario Beretta, Carlo Maiorana & Pier Paolo Poli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. MM, MB, CM, and PPP performed material preparation and data collection. MR and VV performed statistical analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MP, and PPP. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Pellegrini .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, No. 864_2021 (Trial ID 2444). All participants were informed verbally and in writing and provided written informed consent. The authors confirm that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations and were performed in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Manfredini, M., Pellegrini, M., Rigoni, M. et al. Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study. BMC Oral Health 24 , 531 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04265-y

Download citation

Received : 29 June 2023

Accepted : 16 April 2024

Published : 04 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04265-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Dental implants
• Implant-supported rehabilitations
• Oral health
• Psychosocial impact
• Quality of life.

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• Administration for Children & Families
• Upcoming Events
• Open an Email-sharing interface
• Open to Share on Facebook
• Open to Share on Twitter
• Open to Share on Pinterest
• Open to Share on LinkedIn

Prefill your email content below, and then select your email client to send the message.

Recipient e-mail address:

Send your message using:

Checklist for Child Care Staff: Best Practices for Good Oral Health

Download the PDF

Staff play an important role in promoting oral health in child care programs. Staff can check the items below that reflect what they are doing to promote good oral health for babies, toddlers, and young children. Any items not checked can serve as goals to help staff work toward improving their practices related to foods and drinks and oral hygiene.

Babies (Birth to Age 1)

Foods and drinks.

• Hold babies while feeding them breast milk or infant formula from a bottle.
• Never put babies to sleep with bottles or sippy cups. Also, never prop bottles into babies’ mouths.
• When babies are able to eat solid foods, give them healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, milk products (cheese, yogurt), and wholegrain products (bread, cereal) for meals and snacks. Follow U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program requirements for meal and snack preparation, service, and storage.
• Do not serve babies juice.
• Offer babies over age 6 months tap water, ideally with fluoride, throughout the day.

Oral Hygiene

• Make sure that each baby has their own infant-sized, soft-bristled toothbrush. Label the toothbrush with the baby’s name.
• Replace each baby’s toothbrush every 3–4 months, when the bristles become worn or frayed, or after an illness.
• Wash hands with soap and water before and after brushing each baby’s teeth. Child care program staff should wear a new pair of gloves for brushing each baby's teeth.
• Brush babies’ teeth with a small smear (rice-size amount) of fluoride toothpaste as soon as the first tooth comes into the mouth.

Toddlers (Ages 1–3)

• Do not allow toddlers to carry bottles or sippy cups around with them.
• Give toddlers healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, milk and milk products (cheese, yogurt), and whole-grain products (bread, cereal) for meals and snacks. Follow U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program requirements for meal and snack preparation, service, and storage.
• If you serve juice to toddlers, give no more than 4 oz of 100 percent fruit juice per day. Serve juice in a cup, not a bottle or sippy cup.
• Limit foods and drinks with added sugar. If foods and drinks with added sugar are served to toddlers, give them as part of a meal, not as a snack.
• Offer toddlers tap water, ideally with fluoride, throughout the day, and encourage them to drink.
• Make sure that each toddler has their own child-sized, soft-bristled toothbrush. Label the toothbrush with the toddler’s name.
• Replace each toddler’s toothbrush every 3–4 months, when the bristles become worn or frayed, or after an illness.
• Wash hands with soap and water before and after brushing each toddler's teeth. Child care program staff should wear a new pair of gloves for helping each toddler brush their teeth.
• When dispensing toothpaste from a tube, put the toothpaste for each toddler on the rim of a cup or on a piece of wax paper, and scoop the toothpaste from their cup or wax paper onto the toddler’s toothbrush. Or make sure that each toddler has their own labeled tube of fluoride toothpaste.
• Help toddlers brush their teeth with a small smear of fluoride toothpaste.
• After brushing, have toddlers dribble the remaining toothpaste into a cup, but do not have them rinse. Then have toddlers wipe their mouth with a napkin and place the napkin inside the cup. The cups and napkins are thrown away.
• Do not allow toddlers to play with toothbrushes.
• Rinse each toothbrush, and store the toothbrushes in a holder that allows them to air dry (no toothbrush covers) in an upright position without touching each other.
• Disinfect the sink after all the toothbrushes are rinsed and put away.

Young Children (Ages 3–5)

• Give children healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, milk and milk products (cheese, yogurt), and whole-grain products (bread, cereal) for meals and snacks. Follow U.S. Department of Agriculture Child and Adult Care Food Program requirements for meal and snack preparation, service, and storage.
• If you serve juice to young children, give no more than 4 to 6 oz of 100 percent fruit juice per day.
• Limit foods and drinks with added sugar. If foods and drinks with added sugar are served to children, give them as part of a meal, not as a snack.
• Offer children tap water, ideally with fluoride, throughout the day, and encourage them to drink.
• Make sure that each child has their own child-sized, soft-bristled toothbrush. Label the toothbrush with the child’s name.
• Replace each child’s toothbrush every 3–4 months, when the bristles become worn or frayed, or after an illness.
• Wash hands with soap and water before and after brushing each child's teeth. Child care program staff should wear a new pair of gloves for helping each child brush their teeth.
• When dispensing toothpaste from a tube, put a pea-size amount of toothpaste for each child on the rim of a cup or on a clean piece of wax paper, and have the children scoop the toothpaste from their cup or wax paper onto their toothbrush. Or make sure that each child has their own labeled tube of fluoride toothpaste.
• Help children brush their teeth with a pea-size amount of fluoride toothpaste.
• After brushing, have children spit the remaining toothpaste into a cup, but do not have them rinse. Then have children wipe their mouth with a napkin and place the napkin inside the cup. The cups and napkins are thrown away. 
• Do not allow children to play with toothbrushes.
• Rinse each toothbrush, and store the toothbrushes in a holder that allows them to air dry (no toothbrush covers) in an upright position without touching each other.
• Disinfect the sink after all the toothbrushes are rinsed and put away. 
• Eating healthy foods
• Brushing teeth with fluoride toothpaste
• Visiting a dental office or clinic
• Preventing oral injury, for example, by wearing a helmet when riding a tricycle or scooter

Oral Health Emergencies

• Cut or bitten tongue, lip, or cheek
• Broken tooth, broken jaw
• Continued bleeding after a primary (baby) tooth falls out
• Have a plan for transporting a child with an oral health emergency to the child’s dentist or the nearest source of emergency oral health care.
• Have contact information for each child’s dentist and a signed release form that allows the child’s dentist to share information with the child’s child care provider.

Holt, K. Lowe, B. Checklist for Child Care Staff: Best Practices for Good Oral Health . Itasca, IL: National Center for Early Childhood Health and Wellness, 2019.

Adapted with permission from National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Parent’s Checklist for Good Dental Health Practices in Child Care . Denver, CO: 2008.

Resource Type: Publication

National Centers: Health, Behavioral Health, and Safety

Audience: Teachers and Caregivers

Last Updated: May 1, 2024

• Privacy Policy
• Freedom of Information Act
• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Viewers & Players

Oral hygiene and health: Do we care enough?

A ccording to the World Health Organization (WHO), oral health is defined as the state of the mouth, teeth, and orofacial structures that enables individuals to perform essential functions such as eating, breathing, and speaking and encompasses psychosocial dimensions such as self-confidence, well-being and the ability to socialise and work without pain, discomfort, and embarrassment. Oral health varies over the life course from early life to old age, is integral to general health, and supports individuals in participating in society and achieving their potential. From a young age, we are taught that maintaining healthy teeth is essential to good oral health. We are taught to brush and floss our teeth to keep them “pearly white”, but dental health is much more than just having clean teeth. It affects the salivary glands, the tongue, the lips, the palate, the lining of the mouth and throat, the gums and their supporting tissues, chewing muscles, and other parts of the head. Oral Health is, in fact, an integral part of our overall health. Although we may not always give it the attention that it deserves, it is extremely important. People sometimes feel guilty about not taking their oral health with the seriousness that it demands. When people start delaying their visits to dentists, they usually find out that oral health is cost-effective to maintain but costly to ignore. Multiple factors contribute to people neglecting their oral health, with one primary reason being the absence of pain. Typically, individuals tend to seek medical attention when they experience pain; however, certain dental issues may not initially manifest significant discomfort. Additionally, concerns such as the financial implications of oral health care and dental treatment, the less visible nature of teeth, anxiety associated with medical care, and past negative experiences with dentistry can also deter individuals from prioritising their oral well-being. These various factors collectively contribute to the tendency to overlook oral health. A healthy and beautiful smile can boost a person’s confidence and positively impact their social interactions. At the same time, dental issues such as bad breath, tooth decay, and gum disease can lead to embarrassment, shame, and even social isolation. For this reason, healthcare workers encourage the community to look after oral health in the same way they take care of their general health. The first step is to make oral health part of your self-care. To prevent tooth decay and gum disease, consistent brushing and flossing is the best way to keep your teeth and gums healthy. However, recommendations for oral health go beyond just brushing your teeth, we have to learn to brush twice a day, to brush thoroughly and correctly. We are also encouraged to use fluoride toothpaste for best results. Fluoride is what protects teeth from tooth decay. It prevents decay by strengthening the tooth’s hard outer surface, called enamel. And, remember to replace your toothbrush when the bristles become worn. How often do you replace your toothbrush? The recommendation is a change the toothbrush at least every 90 days or when the bristles start to splay. Other recommendations for better oral health include avoiding sugary and acidic foods, staying hydrated, use of antibacterial mouthwash, flossing, visiting the dentist for routine check-ups, and professional cleaning. Eating a well-balanced diet is also important. Giving up smoking is also very important for the improvement of oral health. Most people feel that brushing their teeth in the morning is enough for good oral health, although this is a good first step, omitting other recommendations especially regular dental check-ups ups can lead to more dental problems even for individuals who brush regularly. It’s also interesting that recent research has indicated possible associations between chronic oral infections and diabetes, heart and lung disease, stroke, and low birth weight or premature births. In other words, oral health refers to the health of our mouth and, ultimately, supports and reflects the health of the entire body. Good oral hygiene habits are essential for maintaining good dental health and overall well-being. Brushing your teeth twice a day and flossing at least once a day can help to prevent tooth decay and periodontal disease, which is an infection of the gums caused by bacteria build-up. By brushing and regular flossing, regular visits to the dentist, you can be able to keep that bright smile for years to come. Dr Vincent Mutabazi is an applied epidemiologist. X: @VkneeM

6 Best Tongue Scrapers to Boost Your Oral Hygiene

By Annie Blackman

All products are independently selected by our editors. If you buy something, we may earn an affiliate commission.

So you  brush ,  floss , and swish mouthwash like a champ. Yay! But before we cue the confetti, let's address the elephant in the room: One of the  best tongue scrapers  is jarringly absent from your  oral-care routine . That's right; your tongue is a hugely important facet that affects the health of your mouth. Yes, angel, the appendage that takes up approximately two-thirds of your mouth deserves as much attention as your teeth and gums. That  bad breath  you can't seem to shake? That plaque forming a white tongue coating all over? Your dulled sense of taste? A few strokes of a tongue scraper daily can help.

Our Top Picks:

• Best Overall Tongue Scraper: MasterMedi Tongue Scraper , $10
• Best Single-Handle Tongue Scraper: Davids Professional Tongue Scraper , $20
• Best Antimicrobial Tongue Scraper: Keeko Copper Tongue Cleaner , $15
• Best Electric Tongue Scraper: Slate Electric Flosser , $90
• Best Value Tongue Scraper: Supersmile Ripple Edge Tongue Cleaner , $9
• Longest-Lasting Tongue Scraper: Terra & Co. Gentle Green Tongue Scraper , $15

Read on for a roundup of the best tongue scrapers the web has to offer, along with oral wellness tips and enlightenment from board-certified dentists.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What are the benefits of using a tongue scraper, how should i choose a tongue scraper.

• How do tongue scrapers work?

How should I use a tongue scraper?

Meet the experts, best overall: mastermedi tongue scraper.

MasterMedi Tongue Scraper

Why It's Worth It:  Gunk be gone: The MasterMedi Tongue Scraper is here in all its stainless steel glory to make your mouth squeaky clean. Gentle on your tongue but tough on white build-up, it won't rust or become moldy, and you can toss it in the dishwasher when it's time for a clean. This duo comes with two handy travel cases so you can keep your scraper safely in your medicine cabinet, or stow them in your  cosmetic bag  before you skip town.

Editor Tip:  This scraper's wide head helps prevent gagging when you reach the back of your tongue.

Material:  Stainless steel | What's Included:  2 scrapers, 2 travel cases

Best Single-Handle Tongue Scraper: Davids Professional Tongue Scraper

Davids Professional Tongue Scraper

The Detox Market

Why It's Worth It:  The unique shape of the Davids Professional Tongue Scraper paired with the satisfying heft of the stainless steel makes the tool especially easy to guide as you open wide. The scraper's smaller, rounded head allows for more precision, which is ideal for reaching the sides of the tongue. It's comfortable, high-quality, and can send you on your way to fresher breath. Huge.

Editor Tip:  Unlike many other tongue scraper options, the Davids Professional Tongue Scraper only requires one hand to scrape, which is a plus for people with hand-mobility limitations .

Material:  Stainless steel |  What's Included:  1 scraper

Best Antimicrobial Tongue Scraper: Keeko Copper Tongue Cleaner

Keeko Copper Tongue Cleaner

Anthropologie

Why It's Worth It:  Keeko's Copper Tongue Cleaner is constructed with 100% pure copper (a naturally antimicrobial material) to rid your mouth of plaque and bacteria and clear up your taste buds. The tool features a horseshoe-shaped head with a ridgeless build for super smooth gliding on your tongue.

Editor Tip:  Since the scraper is made of copper, it will likely tarnish over time. But it's all good—it's a normal process and won't affect the function of the tool or the material's antimicrobial properties.

Material:  Copper | What's Included:  1 scraper

Best Electric Tongue Scraper: Slate Electric Flosser

Slate Electric Flosser

Why It's Worth It: Basically the Swiss army knife of oral hygiene, behold the Slate Electric Flosser. Sure, you won't find the word "tongue" in the name of this tool, but make no mistake, this thing gets your tongue fresh as hell. The three-in-one head features one side for flossing , and another for scraping that's designed to accommodate the natural curvature of the tongue.

Editor Tip: The flosser comes with five floss heads, and the brand recommends swapping them out every week. You can re-up as necessary, or sign up for a $20-a-month subscription plan for recurring delivery ranging from monthly to every five months.

Material: Plastic, nylon | What's Included: 1 scraper, 5 floss heads

Best Value: Supersmile Ripple Edge Tongue Cleaner

Supersmile Ripple Edge Tongue Cleaner

Why It's Worth It:  Another non-metal option, the Supersmile Ripple Edge Tongue Cleaner has a unique, non-curved yet super bendable design to reach all of your nookiest crannies. Place the plastic tongue scraper ripple-side-down, and use both hands to bend the tool into a "U" shape. Sweep the tool from back to front and rinse it when you're all done.

By Kirbie Johnson

By Aliza Kelly

By Brennan Kilbane

Editor Tip:  Pair this three-pack with the  Supersmile Whitening Toothpaste , which, in addition to brightening your teeth, gently whitens veneers and bonding.

Material:  Plastic | What's Included:  3 scrapers

Longest-Lasting: Terra & Co. Gentle Green Tongue Scraper

Terra & Co.

Terra & Co. Gentle Green Tongue Scraper

Thirteen Lune

Why It's Worth It: The no-frills Terra & Co. Gentle Green Tongue Scraper has grip handles that ensure easy gliding and the wide head offers deeper-than-usual reach. Feel free to scrape your tongue's surface multiple times, washing with mouthwash between strokes. Terra & Co.'s cofounder, Amra Hajdarevic, previously told Allure that her practice of daily tongue scraping is an Ayurvedic ritual that helps remove ama , which she described as “any accumulation of toxic residue in the mind and body.”

Editor Tip:  This stainless steel tongue scraper can last up to a decade with consistent washing and thorough drying, according to the brand.

Material:  Stainless steel |  What's Included: 1 scraper

Frequently Asked Questions

"Tongue scrapers help exfoliate oral debris and bacteria that accumulate on the surface of the tongue," explains  Joyce Kahng , DDS, a board-certified cosmetic dentist based in New York City. "Similar to  exfoliating your face to remove dead skin cells, your tongue experiences cell turnover, too," she adds. Like your skin, your tongue harbors bacteria, which can build up over time and discolor the tongue's surface.

To dive further into the anatomy of the tongue, it is "covered in thousands of little finger-like projections called papillae, which allow us to sense flavors, textures, and temperatures," explains Chrystle Cu , DDS, board-certified dentist and cofounder of Cocofloss based in San Mateo, CA. "The papillae form a shag rug-type surface on our tongue, which can be a repository for food debris and bacteria—tongue scrapers work by physically removing the filmy, often smelly buildup from your tongue."

So, how do we know when to use a tongue scraper? Ideally, you should be using it every day. But, as for telltale signs if you don't already use one, "if you notice your tongue turning white, black, or brown, that's a sign of debris buildup that needs cleaning," Dr. Kahng warns. Plus, scraping away the bacteria accumulating on the tongue can stave off potential health issues. "Aside from the winning benefit of having fresher, cleaner breath and an improved sense of taste, keeping one's tongue clean…can help prevent tooth decay and gum disease ," explains Dr. Cu.

These oral health tools vary by shape, size, and material, and the choice often comes down to personal preference. "Tongue scrapers come in stainless steel, copper, titanium, silicone, and plastic. explains Dr. Cu." Choose the one that is easy for you to use, is easy for you to keep clean, and that you’d feel comfortable using often."

Dr. Kahng, for example, "personally prefer[s] the two-handled version because it offers more control, whereas the one-handled scraper feels harder to maneuver." Regarding material, Dr. Kahng is a proponent of stainless steel over plastic. "Plastic scrapers should be replaced every three months, similar to a toothbrush, while stainless steel ones are durable and environmentally friendly—I've never had to replace mine," Dr. Kahng attests. "Copper scrapers are popular, too, especially for their alignment with  Ayurvedic practices , though they can tarnish over time, similar to how the Statue of Liberty has turned green."

"To use a tongue scraper effectively, scrape your tongue gently twice a day—morning and night," Dr. Cu explains. "Start at the back of the tongue and move forward, covering the entire surface. Be careful not to apply too much pressure; seeing blood means you're scraping too hard." She adds that the goal of removing the top film on the tongue is to maintain health and cleanliness. Repeated use over time can even help reduce the gag reflex, especially as you scrape toward the back.

Michael Apa , DDS, a board-certified dentist and founder of  Apa Aesthetic  (located in Los Angeles, New York City, and Dubai), suggests scraping two or three times per session, rinsing the tool under warm water between each pull. Once you're done, rinse your mouth with water or mouthwash to clear any remaining residue.

• Amra Hajdarevic, cofounder of oral-care brand Terra & Co
• Joyce Kahng , DDS, a board-certified New York City-based cosmetic dentist
• Chrystle Cu , DDS, a board-certified dentist and cofounder of Cocofloss based in San Mateo, CA
• Michael Apa , DDS, board-certified dentist and founder of Apa Aesthetic

More dental care recs to upgrade your oral health:

• 9 Best Teeth Whiteners for Sensitive Teeth, According to Dentists
• 9 Best Flosses That'll Upgrade Your Dental Care Routine
• 15 Best Electric Toothbrushes Ever, According to Dentists

Now, watch Lindsay Lohan break down her most iconic looks:

Don't forget to follow Allure on Instagram , Twitter , and TikTok , or subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on all things beauty.

Allure Daily Beauty Blast

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Allure. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Sarah Madaus

By Loren Savini

By Annie Blay

The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

Best mouth sprays to keep you refreshed: on-the-go oral care.

Discover the refreshing world of mouth sprays with our roundup of the best options available in India. From combating bad breath to providing instant freshness on the go, these sprays promise to elevate your oral hygiene routine. Dive into our comprehensive guide to find the perfect mouth spray that suits your needs and keeps your breath minty fresh all day.

List of Best Mouth Sprays in India

1. spraymintt spraymint mouth freshener - brezeberry.

Spraymintt Spraymint Mouth Freshener - Brezeberry, Pack

• Zero calories, zero sugar
• Has clove oil for oral hygiene
• Alcohol-free
• Long-lasting freshness
• 175+ sprays
• Quantity: 15 ml

2. Colgate Vedshakti Mouth Protect Spray - 10gm

• 4 natural Ayurvedic ingredients
• Pocket friendly size
• Instantly kills germs on contact
• Pleasant saunf flavor
• 100+ sprays
• Quantity: 10 ml

3. GLISTER Mouth Freshener Spray (mint)

• No sugar or calories
• Delightful mint flavor
• Fights cavities and removes plaques
• Kills 99.99% bacteria
• Quantity: 8 ml

4. Spraymintt Mouth Freshener: Icy mint flavor

Spraymintt Mouth Freshener | 175+ sprays of instant long lasting with Zero Calories Freshness | ICYMINT flavour | 15g - Pack of 3

• 100% natural ingredients
• Pocket sized
• Zero calories
• Alcohol free

5. The Co Being eMIST Fast-Action Oral Hygiene Mouth Spray

• Actively supports gum health
• Made of natural Ayurvedic ingredients
• Natural flavor
• Fast action anti-bacterial spray
• Quantity: 30 ml

6. Geofresh Ayurvedic Instant Mouth Freshener Spray

Geofresh Ayurvedic Instant Mouth Freshener Spray Pack of 4 Combo (ELAICHI), 15 g

• Masks foul smell
• Provides instant freshness
• Long lasting
• Natural Elaichi flavor
• 100% vegetarian

7. Biotene Moisturizing Gentle Mint Mouth Spray

• Dry Mouth Relief
• Bad Breath Treatment
• Gentle mint flavor
• Sugar and alcohol free
• Quantity: 45 ml

Similar products for you

• Smyle Sviz Minto Fresh | Mouth Freshener | Ayurvedic Instant odor controller
• Binaca Fast Blast Breath Spray - Peppermint
• Comvita Propolis Oral Spray, 0.68 Fluid Ounce

Similar articles for you

• Best biotin tablets for hair growth in India
• Best Neem Juices in India to Battle the Summer Heat: Vitality with Well-being
• 10 Best Sports Drinks in India for Endless Energy

FAQs about mouth sprays

Q1. can mouth freshener sprays mask underlying dental issues, q2. are mouth freshener sprays safe to use, q3. how often can i use a mouth freshener spray, related products.

Find this comment offensive?

Choose your reason below and click on the Report button. This will alert our moderators to take action

Reason for reporting:

Your Reason has been Reported to the admin.

To post this comment you must

Log In/Connect with:

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

Stories you might be interested in