↓ Skip to main content

Association of children’s toothbrushing and fine motor skills: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, January 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Association of children’s toothbrushing and fine motor skills: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, January 2022
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2022.vol36.0103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Cristina Mafla, Ramiro José Benavides, Pierre Meyer, Nicolas Giraudeau, Falk Schwendicke

Abstract

Fine motor skills (FMS) allow for the control and coordination of the distal musculature of hands and fingers, a skill required to brush teeth. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between FMS and toothbrushing efficacy. This cross-sectional study included 42 low-income Latino children aged 5 to 9 years from Pasto, Colombia. Toothbrushing efficacy was determined by the children's dental plaque Quigley-Hein Index (QH-I) mean-score difference from before and after toothbrushing. FMS were evaluated using the 5-15R parent evaluation, the spiral drawing Archimedes test, and a neurodevelopmental assessment of movements and prehension patterns during toothbrushing. A descriptive analysis was performed to assess the characteristics of FMS and children's toothbrushing, and a generalized linear model was used to determine associations between these skills and toothbrushing efficacy. Eighty-six percent of the children had at least one difficulty with FMS, and in 7%, they interfered with daily activities. Fourteen percent presented a moderate pattern in the Archimedes test, and 43% had inefficient prehension patterns. Toothbrushing reduced the QH-I by a mean of 1.45 (SD = 0.78-2.12) (p < 0.001). Toothbrushing efficacy was only significantly associated with age (mean-difference = -0.315, 95%CI: -0.481 to -0.148, p < 0.001). FMS and toothbrushing efficacy were not significantly associated. Other components of fine motor control should be analyzed to understand the kinetics of toothbrushing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Unspecified 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 14 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Unspecified 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2022.
All research outputs
#17,301,727
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#195
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,603
of 515,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 515,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.