Next Article in Journal
Efficacy of Treatments in Nonarteritic Ischemic Optic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Immigrant Status and Ethnic Inequities in Dental Caries in Children: Bilbao, Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Processing of Distillery Stillage to Recover Phenolic Compounds with Ultrasound-Assisted and Microwave-Assisted Extractions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Sociodemographic Factors and Prevalence of Oral Lesions in People Living with HIV from Cacoal, Rondônia, Amazon Region of Brazil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 5
10.3390/ijerph19052717
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Czech and Slovak Dental Students’ Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours (KAB): Multi-Country Cross-Sectional Study

by
Abanoub Riad
1,2,*,
Veronika Chuchmová
2,
Ján Staněk
3,
Barbora Hocková
4,
Sameh Attia
5,
Martin Krsek
2,† and
Miloslav Klugar
1,2,*,†
1
Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, 775 15 Olomouc, Czech Republic
4
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, F. D. Roosevelt University Hospital, 975 17 Banska Bystrica, Slovakia
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University, Klinikstrasse 33, 35392 Giessen, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 2717; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19052717
Submission received: 25 January 2022 / Revised: 22 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 25 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Health and Disease Prevention)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dentists play a key role in the primary prevention of oral diseases and related systemic complications; therefore, their views on behavioural interventions need to be aligned with the current agendas for oral health. Likewise, dental students’ oral health-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours (KAB) are of practical importance, as they are the future opinion leaders for oral health in their respective communities. A cross-sectional survey-based study was designed to evaluate the oral health KAB of dental students in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The study utilized translated versions of the Hiroshima University Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI), and it aimed to recruit students from all Czech and Slovak dental schools. A total of 487 students were included in this study, out of which 372 (76.4%) were females, 271 (55.6%) were enrolled in preclinical years, 68 (14%) reported smoking tobacco at least once a week, and 430 (88.3%) reported problematic internet use. The mean HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students (8.18 ± 1.80) was comparable with the previously reported scores of dental students in Nordic and Western European countries. Czech students (9.34 ± 1.29) had a significantly higher score than their Slovak counterparts (7.56 ± 1.73). In both countries, preclinical students (8.04 vs. 8.35), the students who reported tobacco smoking (7.63 vs. 8.27), and those who reported problematic internet use (8.11 vs. 8.70) had significantly lower HU-DBI scores than their counterparts, respectively. In the Czech Republic, the significant increases in HU-DBI scores occurred after the first academic year when the students received preventive dentistry courses; therefore, one can put forward that early implementation of preventive elements in undergraduate dental curricula may yield better and more sustainable oral health gains for the students. Future research on Czech and Slovak dental curricula need to re-evaluate the oral hygiene and anti-smoking components and their impact on students’ views and attitudes.

1. Introduction

In May 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) undertook a historic step by approving a resolution on oral health that incorporates oral health within the vision of 2030 for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [1]. The WHO member states are urged now to address the modifiable risk factors of oral diseases that are shared with non-communicable diseases, such as free sugar intake and tobacco use [1,2]. Besides the fact that oral diseases are the most prevalent NCDs globally today, the importance of oral health to systemic health is underlined by a myriad of pathophysiologic interactions between oral and systemic diseases, e.g., diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and malignancies [3,4,5].
Oral diseases are multi-factorial in nature, even though it has been well-established that all patients’ involvement in oral health is entirely behavioural [6,7,8]. The primary prevention of oral diseases implies multiple behavioural targets such as twice-daily toothbrushing, periodic dental check-ups, sugar intake reduction, and smoking cessation, which require multi-level and multi-sectorial approaches to be achieved [3].
Dentists and dental teams’ members have a vital role in this game, as they can provide professional advice to their patients for maintaining good oral hygiene [9,10]. Multiple systematic reviews have recently shown that there is convincing evidence on the immediate effect of educational and promotional interventions in oral health, which justify the need for more active and incentivized roles of dentists and dental hygienists in behavioural counselling [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Likewise, dental students are the future opinion leaders of oral health in their communities; therefore, their oral health-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours (KAB) can reflect their self-care views and indicate how much they may be willing to perform behavioural interventions [17,18,19]. Given the public perceptions of physicians and dentists as exemplary models for healthy lifestyles, the promotional roles of dentists are not limited to teaching proper brushing techniques, but they can be extended to include other behavioural targets, e.g., tobacco cessation, moderate alcohol consumption, physical activity, healthy nutrition, and immunization [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the lack of national strategies for oral health is a stumbling block to meeting the targets set by the European and international entities [29]. The Czech oral healthcare system is primarily dependent on private providers and cost-sharing models where the insurance companies are obliged to cover basic preventive and therapeutic services [30]. However, preventive services such as regular check-ups are remunerated by the current packages, and the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures has increased significantly during the last twenty years [30]. Similarly, public insurance covers regular check-ups in Slovakia, with recent initiatives aimed at complementing these preventive services by restoring school visiting programs [31]. Moreover, preventive dentistry has been included in undergraduate dental curricula for a long time, and it is one of the core competencies for trained dental professionals in both countries [32].
The Hiroshima University Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) developed by Kawamura in 1988 is a psychometric instrument which is widely used to evaluate oral health-related KAB among dental students [33]. Thanks to its psychometric properties, limited length and filling time, and its multi-dimensionality, the HU-DBI had been translated and culturally adapted to multiple languages; therefore, an international comparison of nationally collected data is deemed feasible [34]. The instrument had been tested in various contexts, and it was found to have good capacity to predict clinical outcomes [35].
The overall aim of this study was to evaluate the oral health KAB of dental students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The primary objective was to estimate the levels of oral health KAB using HU-DBI among dental students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The secondary objectives were (i) to assess the role of gender, academic level and clinical experience on students’ oral health KAB, and (ii) to explore the association between oral health KAB and risk health behaviours, e.g., tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and problematic internet use.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out during the autumn semester of the academic year 2021/2022 utilizing a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) to collect data from dental students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The SAQ was coded and disseminated digitally using KoBoToolbox (Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021) [36]. A secured unique resource locator (URL) was used in data collection where no repetitive filling of the questionnaire was possible from the same internet protocol (IP) address. The study was reported according to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBRE) guidelines for cross-sectional studies [37]

2.2. Participants

The target population of this study were undergraduate dental students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia who were enrolled as full-time students during the academic year 2021/2022. The international students enrolled in English programs were not included in this study, nor were Erasmus students. The master’s degree program of dentistry lasts for five years in the Czech Republic and six years in Slovakia [32,38]. The first three years in Czech and Slovak curricula are predominantly occupied by basic medical and dental sciences; therefore, the first, second, and third year are considered preclinical years. On the other hand, the curricula of the following years: fourth and fifth year in the Czech Republic; and fourth, fifth, and sixth year in Slovakia are occupied by clinical dentistry courses; therefore, they are considered clinical years [32,38].
The target participants were invited through multiple channels: (i) a mass email was sent to the members’ list of the Slovak Association of Dental Students (Slovenský Spolok Študentov Zubného Lekárstva “SSŠZL”), and (ii) promotional posts were published at Facebook groups of dental students in the Czech Republic [39]. The participants who did not complete the survey or those who did not indicate their informed consent digitally at the beginning were excluded from the final analyses.
According to the latest report of the Slovak Dentists Chamber (Slovenská Komora Zubných Lekárov “SKZL”), the total number of dental students enrolled in Slovak universities was 674 students in 2020 [40,41]. The total number of dental students in the Czech Republic was estimated to be ≈1800 students [42]. The sample size required for this study was computed using Epi-Info TM version 7.2.5 (CDC. Atlanta, GA, USA, 2021) through the “Population Survey” module, following the assumptions that the confidence level would be 95%, error margin would be 5%, number of clusters would be 2, and expected frequency would be 50% [43,44]. The required sample was 167 students in each country, which is equal to 333 students overall.
A total of 493 responses were received from the target population, four Slovak responses and two Czech responses were empty, and they were excluded from the study. None of the eligible responses had missing or invalid data; therefore, the remaining 487 responses were included in the final analysis (Figure 1).

2.3. Instrument

The SAQ comprised three main categories: (i) demographic characteristics including gender, university, and academic level, (ii) the original HU-DBI items (n = 20), and (iii) general health behaviours including tobacco smoking “I consume tobacco at least once a week”, alcohol drinking “I drink alcohol at least once a week”, problematic internet use “I find myself using my smartphone/compute longer than I planned”, and regular dental check-ups “I go to the dentist/ hygienist for a regular check-up at least once a year” [45,46,47] (Appendix A).

2.3.1. HU-DBI Scoring System

The original HU-DBI instrument had twenty dichotomous (Agree/Disagree) items that are used to evaluate oral health-related knowledge (items no. 2, 8, 10, 15, and 19), attitudes (items no. 9, 11, and 14), and behaviours (items no. 4, 9, 12, 16) [17]. The overall score of HU-DBI is based on the sum of twelve core items; therefore, it ranges between 0 and 12, where the higher score indicates better overall oral health KAB. For the final HU-DBI score, one point is given for each “agree” answer of items no. 4, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 19, and each “disagree” answer of items no. 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15.

2.3.2. Czech HU-DBI

The guidelines of Beaton et al. 2000 for translation and cross-cultural adaptation had been followed for producing a validated Czech version of HU-DBI [48]. Firstly, forward translation from English to Czech had been performed by two independent translators (FT1 and FT2) whose first language was Czech, and both of them had a dental background. Then, an experts’ panel was formed to review the two Czech versions (FT1 and FT2) and produce a common version (FT–12) which was used in the third stage, “backward translation”. Two translators (BT1 and BT2) whose first language was English had been invited to translate the FT–12 from Czech to English independently. In the fourth stage, another experts’ panel comprising the four translators and the study investigators was formed to review BT1, BT2, FT–12, and original English HU-DBI versions in order to discuss all the linguistic and grammatical discrepancies with the intention of producing a pre-final Czech version.
The pre-final Czech version had undergone two phases of psychometric testing to verify its bi-lingual reliability (preliminary testing) and test–re-test reliability (final testing). The preliminary testing phase involved a random sample of 20 young Czech individuals who had a good proficiency level of the English language who were invited to fill in the English version of HU-DBI primarily, and after 24 h, they filled in the pre-final Czech version. Cognitive debriefing (interviews) was conducted by asking 10 out of the 20 volunteers who participated in preliminary testing to share their feedback about the clarity and equivalence of the Czech translation and their suggestions to improve it. The minimum inter-rater agreement level was set to be 80%; therefore, any item rated as unclear by at least 20% of the volunteers, would have been referred back to the expert panel for further consultation and adaptation.
The final phase of psychometric testing (test–re-test reliability) was carried out by inviting a random sample of 40 Czech university students to fill in the pre-final Czech version twice with an interval of 48 h, recommended by Marx et al. 2003 [49]. The mean Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) was 0.941 ± 0.070, and it ranged between 0.754 (item no. 1) and 1.000 (items no. 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20). According to McHugh criteria for interpreting the Cohen’s κ coefficient, the Czech HU-DBI version had an almost perfect level of reliability [50] (Supplementary Table S1).

2.3.3. Slovak HU-DBI

The WHO guidelines for translation and cross-cultural adaptation had been used in producing the Slovak HU-DBI version [51]. The WHO guidelines were pragmatic and involved forward translation by two Slovak native translators (from English to Slovak) and backward translation by a single translator (from Slovak to English). All translators were healthcare professionals. Then, an expert panel was formed to review the produced versions and compare them to the original English HU-DBI version in order to relieve linguistic and grammatical issues. Psychometric testing involved five students who were asked about their opinion about the clarity and equivalence of the Slovak translation to the English source.
Eventually, two items were found to be non-comparable between Czech and Slovak versions; therefore, cross-country comparison of those two items (no. 1 and no. 5) should be approached with caution. The verb “worry” in item no. 1 was translated as “fear” in the Czech version, while the Slovak version used its synonym “concern”. The term “child-sized toothbrush” in item no. 5 was literally translated in the Slovak version, while the Czech version simplified it as “small-headed toothbrush” (Appendix A).

2.4. Ethics

The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University reviewed and approved the protocol of this study on 20 November 2019 (Ref no. 48/2019). The declaration of Helsinki for research involving human subjects and the European Union (EU) general data protection regulation (GDPR) guided the design and execution of the present study [52,53]. All participating students had to indicate their consent digitally prior to their participation, and those who failed to indicate their consent were disqualified from the study. No identifying personal data was collected; therefore, retrospective identification of the participants was not possible. Participation in this study was not encouraged by any means of incentives, and it was not coerced by any means of penalties.

2.5. Analyses

Initially, Shapiro–Wilk test had been performed to verify whether the overall HU-DBI score (0–12) and its subdomains, i.e., knowledge (0–5), attitudes (0–3), and behaviours (0–4) were normally distributed or not with a significance level (Sig.) < 0.05. The HU-DBI scores of Czech and Slovak dental students were not normally distributed; therefore, the non-parametric analytical tests were used.
Descriptive statistics for the nominal variables (gender and country), ordinal variables (academic level and HU-DBI items answers), and numerical variables (HU-DBI scores) had been executed using frequencies (n) and percentages (%) for qualitative variables, and mean and standard deviations (µ ± SD) for quantitative variables. Inferential statistics had been executed to test the association between HU-DBI responses and scores and sociodemographic and behavioural correlates. Chi-squared test (χ2), Fisher’s exact test, Mann–Whitney test (U), and Jonckheere-Terpstra test (JT) were used with a confidence level (CI) of 95% and a significance level (Sig.) < 0.05.
Binary logistic regression had been performed on the dependent variable (country); and it estimated the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of the HU-DBI core items and the sociodemographic and behavioural predictors, which were found to be significant in the univariate analysis (Chi-squared test (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test). The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 was used to explain the variability of group membership (country). Similarly, logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the predictors of tobacco smoking behaviours.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics

Out of the 487 students who were included in the downstream analyses, 372 (76.4%) were females and represented 73.5% and 77.9% of Czech and Slovak samples, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (Sig. = 0.277). Over half of the participants (55.6%) were enrolled in preclinical years without a statistically significant difference (Sig. = 0.909) between Czech (55.3%) and Slovak (55.8%) samples (Table 1).
From the Czech Republic, 170 students were included with the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc being the most contributing faculty (79.4%), followed by the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University (10%), and the First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University (5.9%).
From Slovakia, 317 students were included with Jessenius Faculty of Medicine in Martin, Comenius University being the most contributing faculty (32.2%), followed by the Faculty of Medicine, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University (29.7%), the Faculty of Medicine in Bratislava, Comenius University (24.3%), and the Faculty of Medicine, Slovak Medical University in Bratislava (13.9%).

3.2. Health Behaviours

Tobacco smoking at least once a week was reported by 68 (14%) students, and it was significantly (Sig. = 0.008 and <0.001) more common among Slovak (17%) and male students (24.3%) than their Czech (8.2%) and female colleagues (10.8%), respectively. Drinking alcohol at least once a week was reported by more than one-third of the participants (35.5%), with males having a significantly (Sig. < 0.001) higher prevalence (50.4%) than females (30.9%) in both countries.
The majority of participants (88.3%) reported problematic internet use, which was more common (Sig. = 0.017) among Slovak (90.9%) than Czech (83.5%) students. Regular dental check-ups annually were also reported by the vast majority of our participants (93.6%) with no statistically significant differences based on country, gender, or clinical experience (Table 2).

3.3. HU-DBI Responses

Among Czech students, item no. 3 of worrying about teeth colour received the highest level of agreement (94.1%), followed by item no. 1 of dental anxiety (91.2%), and item no. 5 of using child-sized toothbrushes (90%). Contrarily, item no. 2 of bleeding gingiva had the lowest level of agreement (0.6%), followed by item no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles (1.8%), item no. 7 of dissatisfaction with gingival colour (2.4%), and item no. 6 of incapacity to maintain oral health in older age (2.9%).
Among Slovak students, item no. 3 of worrying about teeth colour received the highest level of agreement (96.2%), followed by item no. 9 of careful toothbrushing (80.1%), and item no. 12 of post-brushing checking (79.2%). Contrarily, item no. 5 of using child-sized toothbrushes had the lowest level of agreement (3.8%), followed by item no. 2 of bleeding gingiva (8.8%), item no. 15 delaying dental visits (8.8%), item no. 7 of dissatisfaction with gingival colour (10.4%), and item no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles (10.4%).
The difference between Czech and Slovak students was statistically significant in fifteen items. Slovak students exhibited significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 2 of gingival bleeding (8.8% vs. 0.6%), no. 4 of noticing dental plaque (31.9% vs. 16.5%), no. 6 of incapacity to maintain oral health in older age (30.3% vs. 2.9%), no. 7 of dissatisfaction with gingival colour (10.4% vs. 2.4%), no. 8 of perceived-efficacy of oral hygiene (20.2% vs. 6.1%), no. 10 of receiving professional oral hygiene training (25.6% vs. 5.9%), no. 14 of preventing periodontal of toothbrushing solely (34.1% vs. 15.3%), no. 17 of using a toothbrush with hard bristles (10.4% vs. 1.8%), and no. 18 of aggressive toothbrushing (14.5% vs. 3.5%) than Czech students. On the other hand, Slovak students exhibited significantly lower agreement levels for items no. 11 of toothbrushing without toothpaste (37.5% vs. 84.1%), no. 16 of using plaque-disclosing agents (37.2% vs. 70%), and no. 19 of spending too much time while toothbrushing (18% vs. 52.9%) than Czech students (Table 3).

3.3.1. Academic Level

In the Czech Republic, the fifth-year students (seniors) had significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 1 of dental anxiety (93.8% vs. 69.2%), no. 11 of toothbrushing without toothpaste (91.7% vs. 53.8%), and no. 16 of using plaque-disclosing agents (83.3% vs. 53.8%) than the first-year students (freshers), respectively. On the other hand, freshers had significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 6 (15.4% vs. 0%), no. 10 of receiving professional oral hygiene training (23.1% vs. 4.2%), no. 12 of post-brushing checking (92.3% vs. 60.4%), and no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles (15.4% vs. 0%) than seniors, respectively.
In Slovakia, the sixth-year students (seniors) had significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 9 of careful toothbrushing (92.6% vs. 75%), no. 11 of toothbrushing without toothpaste (66.7% vs. 19.4%), no. 13 of worrying about halitosis (55.6% vs. 23.6%), and no. 16 of using plaque-disclosing agents (63% vs. 33.3%), than the first-year students (freshers), respectively. On the other hand, freshers had significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles (18.1% vs. 0%) and no. 18 of aggressive toothbrushing (25% vs. 7.4%) than seniors, respectively (Table 3).

3.3.2. Gender

On comparing HU-DBI responses across genders, item no. 3 of worrying about teeth colour was significantly more common among females (97.6%) than males (88.77%) in both countries. Czech female students had a significantly higher agreement level for item no. 5 of using child-sized toothbrushes (94.4% vs. 77.8%) and a lower agreement level for item no. 14 of preventing periodontal disease with brushing alone (12% vs. 24.4%) than Czech males. Slovak female students had a significantly higher agreement level for item no. 16 of using plaque-disclosing agents (40.1% vs. 27.1%) than Slovak males (Table 4).

3.3.3. Clinical Experience

On comparing the HU-DBI responses based on clinical experience, clinical students had significantly higher agreement levels for items no. 11 of toothbrushing without toothpaste (63.4% vs. 46.1%), no. 16 of plaque-disclosing agents use (55.6% vs. 43.2%), and no. 20 of positive feedback of treating dentist (84.3% vs. 76.8%) than their preclinical peers in both countries. Contrarily, clinical students had a significantly lower agreement level for item no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles (4.6% vs. 9.6%) than preclinical students. Additionally, clinical students had a significantly higher agreement level for item no. 5 of using child-sized toothbrushes (7.1% vs. 1.1%) than preclinical students in Slovakia only. (Table 4)

3.3.4. Tobacco Smoking

In both countries, the students who reported smoking tobacco at least once a week had a significantly lower agreement level for item no. 5 of using child-sized toothbrushes (22.1% vs. 35.8%) and higher agreement levels for items no. 14 of preventing periodontal disease through toothbrushing alone (42.6% vs. 25.1%), and no. 15 of delaying dental visits (14.7% vs. 6.4%) than non-smoking students (Table 4).

3.4. HU-DBI Scores

The mean HU-DBI score of the entire sample was 8.18 ± 1.80, with Czech students (9.34 ± 1.29) having a significantly higher score (Sig. < 0.001) than Slovak students (7.56 ± 1.73). Czech students had significantly higher knowledge (4.35 vs. 3.55) and attitudes scores (2.66 vs. 1.73) than their Slovak counterparts. The gender-based differences were not statistically significant (Sig. = 0.316); nevertheless, females exhibited slightly higher scores (Table 5).
The highest HU-DBI score was recorded by the fifth-year students (8.87 ± 1.73), while the lowest score was recorded by the first-year students (7.38 ± 1.56). Similarly, the highest knowledge (4.15 ± 0.76) and attitude (2.35 ± 0.82) scores were achieved by the fifth-year students, while the lowest knowledge (3.49 ± 0.91) and attitude (1.68 ± 0.76) scores were achieved by the first-year students. The differences between the academic levels were statistically significant (Figure 2).
Clinical students from both countries had a significantly higher HU-DBI score (8.35 ± 1.86) than preclinical students (8.04 ± 1.75). The differences were in favour of clinical students in terms of knowledge and attitudes, even though these differences were not statistically significant (Figure 3).
The students who reported smoking at least once a week had a significantly lower HU-DBI score (7.63 ± 2.01) than non-smokers (8.27 ± 1.75). Similarly, the students who reported problematic internet use had a significantly lower HU-DBI score (8.11 ± 1.83) than those who did not report it (8.70 ± 1.50). Problematic internet use was associated with lower knowledge (3.79 vs. 4.11) and attitude (2.02 vs. 2.33) scores. Regular dental check-ups were significantly associated with higher HU-DBI (8.23 vs. 7.42) and behaviours (2.33 vs. 1.90) scores. Knowledge and behaviours scores were also higher among the students who reported regular dental check-ups without statistical significance (Figure 4).

3.4.1. Czech Students

In the Czech Republic, gender-based differences were not statistically significant; nevertheless, females scored slightly better. The fifth-year students had the highest HU-DBI score (9.56 ± 1.29), while the first-year students had the lowest HU-DBI score (8.31 ± 1.55). Clinical students (9.50 ± 1.22) and the students who reported regular dental check-ups (9.39 ± 1.23) had higher HU-DBI scores than preclinical students (9.20 ± 1.34) and those who did not report regular dental check-ups (8.62 ± 1.76). HU-DBI scores of the students who reported tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking were not significantly different from their counterparts (Table 6).

3.4.2. Slovak Students

In Slovakia, gender-based differences were not statistically significant. The sixth-year students had the highest HU-DBI score (8.44 ± 1.22), while the first-year students had the lowest HU-DBI score (7.21 ± 1.51). Clinical students (7.73 ± 1.85) and the students who reported regular dental check-ups (7.62 ± 1.71) had significantly higher HU-DBI scores than preclinical students (7.43 ± 1.62) and those who did not report regular dental check-ups (6.56 ± 1.79). HU-DBI scores of the students who reported tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, and problematic internet use were lower than their counterparts (Table 7).

3.5. Year-Over-Year Analysis

3.5.1. Czech Students

The year-over-year (YOY) analysis for Czech students’ HU-DBI scores revealed that the differences between first vs. second year were statistically significant for the knowledge score (Sig. = 0.042), attitudes score (Sig. = 0.002), and overall HU-DBI score (Sig. = 0.007). Additionally, the attitudes score significantly increased from each year to the following one; first vs. second year (Sig. = 0.002), second vs. third year (Sig. = 0.014), and third vs. fourth year (Sig. = 0.033). There were no other significant differences found between the consecutive academic years in terms of HU-DBI scores (Table 8).

3.5.2. Slovak Students

The year-over-year (YOY) analysis for Slovak students’ HU-DBI scores revealed no significant differences between the consecutive academic years in terms of HU-DBI scores. Nevertheless, the largest differences were found between second vs. third year without statistical significance (Table 9).

3.6. Regression Analysis of State

According to the univariate analysis for HU-DBI core items, items no. 2 (bleeding gingiva), no. 4 (noticing dental plaque), no. 6 (incapacity to maintain oral health in older age), no. 8 (perceived-efficacy of oral hygiene), no. 10 (receiving professional oral hygiene training), no. 11 (toothbrushing without toothpaste), no. 12 (post-brushing checking), no. 14 (preventing periodontal disease through brushing alone), no.16 (plaque-disclosing agents use), and no. 19 (spending too much time while brushing) were used in the binary logistic regression analysis to predict group membership “country” of the participants. In addition, tobacco smoking and problematic internet use were found significantly associated with students’ country; therefore, they were suggested to be used in the regression model (Table 10).
The suggested model managed to predict the country of the participating students with 80.9% of accuracy. Nagelkerke pseudo R2 indicated that the model could explain 52.7% of the variability in the dependent variable (country) (Table 11).

3.7. Regression Analysis of Tobacco Smoking

According to the univariate analysis for HU-DBI core items, items no. 14 (preventing periodontal disease through brushing alone) and no. 15 (delaying dental visits) were used in the binary logistic regression analysis to predict group membership “tobacco smoking” of the participants. In addition, Slovak nationality, male gender, and alcohol drinking were found significantly associated with students’ smoking behaviour; therefore, they were suggested to be used in the regression model (Table 12).
The suggested model managed to predict the country of the participating students with 85.6% of accuracy. Nagelkerke pseudo R2 indicated that the model could explain 13.7% of the variability in the dependent variable (tobacco smoking) (Table 13).

4. Discussion

The present study found that the mean HU-DBI score of Czech dental students (9.34 ± 1.29) was significantly higher than the mean score of Slovak students (7.56 ± 1.73). While the knowledge score (4.35 vs. 3.55) and attitudes score (2.66 vs. 1.73) were significantly higher among Czech students, the behaviours score (2.33 vs. 2.28) was not significantly different between Czech vs. Slovak students. In both countries, female dental students (8.24 ± 1.76) had higher HU-DBI scores than their male colleagues (8.00 ± 1.93); nevertheless, the gender-based differences were not statistically significant. Preclinical students (8.04 vs. 8.35), the students who reported tobacco smoking (7.63 vs. 8.27), and those who reported problematic internet use (8.11 vs. 8.70) had significantly lower HU-DBI scores than their counterparts. On comparing our findings to the HU-DBI-based studies of European dental students, Czech and Slovak students had HU-DBI score (8.18 ± 1.80), which was comparable with the students from Western Europe and Nordic countries, e.g., Swiss (8.02 ± 1.27), Dutch (8.0 ± 1.19), Portuguese (7.74 ± 1.40), Brits (7.33), and Finns (7.15 ± 1.13) students [19,54,55,56]. Our participants’ score was significantly higher than the score of the students from Eastern Europe, e.g., Serbian (6.27 ± 0.27), Lithuanian (6.35 ± 1.43), Croatian (6.62 ± 1.54), and Romanian (6.96) students [57,58,59,60].
While twice-daily brushing with fluoride toothpaste is a universal recommendation for oral hygiene, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses revealed that toothpaste has no contribution to the mechanical removal of dental plaque [61,62,63]. Sälzer et al. 2020 confirmed that a reduction in plaque scores by 50% can be achieved by toothbrushing either with or without toothpaste [63]. Therefore, agreement with item no. 11 of toothbrushing without toothpaste and disagreement with item no. 14 of preventing periodontal disease by toothbrushing solely were depicted as indicators for excellent oral health-related awareness and attitudes. Our study found that Czech students were significantly more agreeable with item no. 11 (84.1% vs. 37.5%) and disagreeable with item no. 14 (84.7% vs. 65.9%) than their Slovak counterparts; nevertheless, final-year students had significantly higher agreement levels with item no. 11 than their first-year colleagues in both the Czech Republic (91.7% vs. 53.8%) and Slovakia (66.7% vs. 19.4%). Similar positive trend was previously reported in Romania (freshers: 26% vs. seniors: 58%), Poland (1.9% vs. 33.9%), Greece (11% vs. 64%), Japan (59% vs. 96%), South Korea (3% vs. 88%) [18,60,64,65]. In Croatia, final-year dental students (42.6%) reported using plaque-disclosing agents significantly more than their first-year colleagues (16.1%) [66]. On the other hand, Croatian nurses with completed secondary school (16.3%) and nurses with bachelor’s or master’s degrees (19.6%) did not have significant differences (Sig. = 0.671) in terms of plaque-disclosing agents use; thus, indicating the positive impact of dental curricula on dental students’ oral health attitudes [67].
Plaque-disclosing agents use (item no. 16) indicates positive oral health behaviours; therefore, it was incorporated in the HU-DBI scoring system. Recent studies revealed that the vast majority of dental hygienists in the Czech Republic (88.2%) recommend their patients use plaque detectors at home in the form of tablets (78.3%) and mouthwashes (9.9%) due to the ease of their application; nevertheless, more than half of Czech adults reported that they had never visited a dental hygienist in their life [68,69]. The use of plaque-disclosing agents was significantly (Sig. < 0.001) higher among Czech (70%) students than their Slovak counterparts (37.2%), even though there was a significant and steady increase (+30%) of their use from the first year to the final year in both the Czech Republic (53.8% vs. 83.3%) and Slovakia (33.3% vs. 63%). In Turkey, several HU-DBI-based studies reported the same increasing pattern of plaque-disclosing agents use from the first year to the final year [70,71,72,73]. On comparing dental students to other healthcare students, e.g., general medicine and nursing students, the use of plaque-disclosing agents was significantly increasing through dental education, while it did not differ between freshers and seniors of other healthcare programs [73,74]. Therefore, it is evident that dental curricula, through their preventive elements, can help in increasing the use of plaque-disclosing agents.
The use of toothbrushes with hard bristles (item no. 17) can be associated with hard dental tissues loss and soft tissues injuries. A randomized controlled trial by Zimmer et al. 2011 revealed that hard bristles had higher efficiency for plaque removal; however, they also caused soft tissue injuries more frequently compared with soft bristles [75]. Other studies concluded that hard dental tissue loss (erosion) had been mediated by stiffness of toothbrushes bristles, and it was mainly caused by toothpaste and their chemical composition [76]. A recent population-based study from Brazil found that bristles stiffness was significantly associated with erosive tooth wear among adolescents [77]. In our study, Slovak students had significantly (Sig. < 0.001) higher agreement with item no. 17 of using toothbrushes with hard bristles than their Czech counterparts (10.4% vs. 1.8%, respectively); and in both countries first-year students had significantly higher agreement levels compared with their final-year colleagues. In agreement with our findings, a recent survey for oral health practices of medical and dental hygiene students at the Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University (Prague, Czech Republic) reported that the vast majority of participating students were using either extra-soft or ultra-soft toothbrushes [78]. Nevertheless, population-based studies for oral hygiene behaviours of Czech adults are recommended to address bristles stiffness for a better understanding of consumption patterns.
Aggressive toothbrushing refers to applying excessive mechanical forces during brushing that may cause tooth surface abrasion [79,80,81,82,83]. Several studies recommended that the application of appropriate mechanical forces during toothbrushing should be an integral part of oral hygiene education in order to avoid the negative consequences of aggressive toothbrushing [79,82]. In our study, Slovak students had a significantly (Sig. < 0.001) higher rate of reported aggressive toothbrushing (item no. 18) compared with Czech students, 14.5% vs. 3.5%, respectively. Among Czech students, the rate of aggressive toothbrushing did not differ significantly between preclinical and clinical students, while in Slovakia, first-year students (25%) had a higher rate than final-year students (7.4%). Similar to the Slovak trend, final-year dental students had significantly lower levels of aggressive toothbrushing than their first-year colleagues in Poland (0% vs. 13%), Greece (7% vs. 33%), and Japan (13% vs. 48%) [18,56,64].
Worrying about teeth colour (item no. 3) was one of the few items that were not significantly different between Czech vs. Slovak students or preclinical vs. clinical students, even though this issue was significantly more common among female students than their male peers in both the Czech Republic (97.6% vs. 84.4%) and Slovakia (97.6% vs. 91.4%). Interestingly enough, the responses to items no. 7 of dissatisfaction with gingival colour and no. 13 of worrying about halitosis were not significantly different across gender or clinical experience. Prior HU-DBI-based studies found that female dental students were more worried about their teeth colour (item no. 3) than male students, e.g., Poland (38.6% vs. 20.4%) and Romania (44% vs. 31%) [60,64]. In Brazil, a descriptive cross-sectional study concluded that female dental students were less satisfied with their smiles than their male peers, and the preclinical students were more interested in having brighter teeth than clinical students [84]. While multiple studies revealed no significant differences between female and male dental students in their skills of teeth shade matching, few studies found that female dental students had superior skills [85,86,87]. Another explanation could be based on the finding that females are more concerned with facial appearance; therefore, they are more sensitive to teeth shape and colour and more inclined to seek esthetic treatments [88,89,90,91,92,93].
Female students represented the majority of our sample (76.4%); thus reflecting the female dominance of the dental profession in both the Czech Republic (64.9%) and Slovakia (61.2%), according to the latest reports of the Czech Dental Chamber (ČSK) and the Slovak Chamber of Dentists (SKZL) [41,94]. According to the Council of European Dentists (CED), countries with well-established public oral healthcare systems, such as Nordic and Eastern European countries, used to have higher shares of female dentists, e.g., Poland (78%), and Finland (69%). Additionally, the recent CED report pointed out the rising trend of female dentists in Europe, which was clearly evident in Western countries such as the United Kingdom, which witnessed a significant increase in female dentists proportion from 34% in 2008 to 45% in 2015 and France (36% vs. 40%) [95].
Čepová et al. 2018 found that female adults in Slovakia were significantly more likely to visit dentist/dental hygienist for routine check-ups (59.9% vs. 49.1%), report twice-daily toothbrushing (83.5% vs. 72.3%), and use interdental cleaning devices (62.5% vs. 42.1%) than male adults [96]. Similarly, Samohyl et al. 2021 concluded that avoidance of preventive oral healthcare was significantly more common among male adolescents than females in Slovakia [97]. The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study found a significant difference between female (71.7%) and male (54.8%) adolescents in Slovakia in terms of twice-daily toothbrushing [98]. In the Czech Republic, the HBSC indicated that 32–38% of male and 21% of female adolescents were not brushing their teeth twice a day, even though there was an observed positive trend towards the twice-daily brushing habit among males between 1994 and 2014 [99]. In our sample, the gender-based differences were not statistically significant in HU-DBI scores and the vast majority of items responses, which is in contrast to what was previously reported about oral health behaviours and awareness of general Czech and Slovak populations [96,97,98,99]. Consequently, one may put forward that dental education can contribute to squeezing or probably closing the gender gaps in oral health attitudes and behaviours, which might be a sound reasoning for population-level interventions that target oral health literacy of the public [100,101,102].
Clinical students had a higher HU-DBI score than pre-clinical students in both countries (8.35 vs. 8.04); nevertheless, this difference was only statistically significant among Slovak (7.73 vs. 7.43; Sig. = 0.032) not Czech (9.50 vs. 9.20; Sig. = 0.166) students, which could be due to sample size differences. The superiority of clinical students in HU-DBI scores was observed in prior studies, e.g., Lithuania (6.81 vs. 5.96), Romania (7.35 vs. 6.60), and Turkey (7.47 vs. 6.00) [58,60,71]. The standard hypothesis for explaining this difference implies that improvement of oral health KAB is a collateral gain from the professional education on oral diseases and prevention, which is gradually received by dental students [59]. On comparing the undergraduate dental curricula of both countries, the courses of preventive dentistry and dental public health are administered earlier in Czech than Slovak universities. In the Czech Republic, the course of preventive dentistry and dental hygiene (B03033) is administered during the first semester (first year) at Charles University (Prague); and the course of preventive dentistry and cariology (ST1/ZUB01) is also administered during the second semester (first year) at Palacky University (Olomouc) [103,104]. On the other hand, the course of preventive dentistry (J-S-ZL-035) is administered during the sixth semester (third year) at Comenius University (Bratislava), and the course of preventive dentistry (SK/PreZL-ZL/15) is administered during the fifth semester (third year) in Pavol Jozef Šafárik University (Košice) [105,106]. The year-over-year analysis (YOY) indicated that the only significant improvement for HU-DBI score occurred among Czech students was between the first vs. second year (Sig. = 0.007); thus, it may be depicted as an immediate effect of preventive courses that were administered during the first year.
The reported prevalence of tobacco smoking in our sample was 14%, which is significantly lower than the prevalence of tobacco smoking in both Czech (31.5%) and Slovak (32.3%) general adult populations [107,108]. Tobacco smoking was more significantly common among male students (24.3%) than females (10.8%), which is in agreement with the current demographics of tobacco use in both the Czech Republic (35.4% vs. 22.6%) and Slovakia (39.2% vs. 23.2%) [109]. Notably, Slovak students were significantly more likely to report tobacco smoking (17%) than their Czech counterparts (8.2%). According to the latest European Tobacco Control Scale (ETCS) report of 2019, the rank of the Czech Republic (23rd) had improved by eight positions since the report of 2016 (31st) due to the fact that the country adopted comprehensive anti-smoking legislations since February 2017 and ratified the WHO FCTC Illicit Trade Protocol [110]. The ECTS report of 2019 also showed that the rank of Slovakia (32nd) had dropped by two positions since the 2016 report (30th) as no progress was made since 2010 in the fight against tobacco [110]. Anti-smoking education was first introduced to undergraduate dental curricula in the Czech Republic twenty years ago [111]. The rationale for this move was based on the prior findings on the underestimation of smoking risks by healthcare professionals, including physicians and dentists, who were not reimbursed for helping their patients quit smoking [111]. In our study, the students who reported smoking tobacco at least once a week had a significantly lower HU-DBI score (8.27 vs. 7.63) and a higher agreement level for item no. 15 of delaying dental visits (14.7% vs. 6.4%) compared with non-smoking students. Our findings suggest that tobacco smoking may be associated with poor oral health KAB among dental students; thus, calling for a re-evaluation of the currently implemented anti-smoking curricula in Czech dental schools.
Mravčík et al. 2019 concluded that although alcohol consumption and heavy episodic drinking levels in the Czech Republic are one of the highest worldwide, there was a recent declining trend for alcohol drinking among adolescents and children [112]. A total of 35.5% of our participants reported drinking alcohol at least once a week, with a significant (Sig. < 0.001) difference between males (50.4%) and females (30.9%). Longitudinal analysis for HBSC data of Czech adolescents pointed out this significant decline of alcohol drinking between 1994 and 2014, with an increased vulnerability of male adolescents [113]. The same trend was reported by HBSC in Slovakia with similar gender-based differences [114]. A recent large cross-sectional study for American adults revealed that alcohol consumption, especially heavy drinking, was significantly associated with alterations of oral microbiome that might explain the aetiology of multiple alcohol-related diseases [115]. While alcohol drinking was not associated with poor oral health KAB among our participants, it is still imperative to educate and motivate future dentists to perform screening for alcohol use, especially heavy drinking, among their patients as this can be a life-saving intervention for early detection of oral and oropharyngeal cancers [116].
The vast majority of our participants (88.3%) reported using their smartphones and laptops longer than they planned. Problematic internet use had been consistently found among all age groups of Czech society, while the 12–15-year-old adolescents exhibited the highest level of excessive internet use [117]. In our sample, problematic internet use was significantly associated with a lower oral health-related knowledge score (3.79 vs. 4.11), attitudes score (2.02 vs. 2.33), and HU-DBI score (8.11 vs. 8.70). Recently, a national survey-based study for Korean adolescents revealed that problematic internet use affected sleep quality directly and oral health indirectly [118]. Our results warrant further investigation for the potential association between oral health KAB and problematic internet use, especially among younger age groups.

4.1. Strengths

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate the oral health KAB of dental students in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The use of HU-DBI as a widely used instrument facilitated international comparison of the Czech and Slovak dental students’ outcomes. Following a rigorous methodology for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the HU-DBI, especially in producing the Czech version, ensured the validity of the translated versions. The identity of the participants was anonymous in order to limit the Hawthorne’s effect and information bias that is predicted to occur with healthcare professionals and students.

4.2. Limitations

The first limitation of the present study is the cross-sectional design that did not allow for real-time evaluation of the year-over-year gains of oral health KAB during dental education. Secondly, cross-country comparison was limited in items no. 1 (dental anxiety) and no. 5 (use of child-sized toothbrushes) due to discrepancies of Czech vs. Slovak translations; nevertheless, gender- and academic-level-based comparisons were possible for each country. Thirdly, there was a lack of information on tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking because the investigators aimed to keep the questionnaire as short as possible in order to ensure a satisfactory response rate. Fourthly, the unequal sample sizes of Czech and Slovak students may have limited the cross-country comparison.

4.3. Implications

The findings of this study suggest that early implementation of preventive elements in undergraduate dental curricula may yield better and more sustainable oral health gains for the students. Future research on Czech and Slovak dental curricula need to re-evaluate the current anti-smoking components and their impact on students’ views and attitudes. The potential association between problematic internet use and oral health KAB need further investigation, especially among young adult groups, including future healthcare professionals.

5. Conclusions

The present study found that the mean HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students (8.18 ± 1.80) is comparable with the previously reported scores of dental students in Nordic and Western European countries. Czech students (9.34 ± 1.29) had a significantly higher score than their Slovak counterparts (7.56 ± 1.73). In both countries, preclinical students (8.04 vs. 8.35), the students who reported tobacco smoking (7.63 vs. 8.27), and those who reported problematic internet use (8.11 vs. 8.70) had significantly lower HU-DBI scores than their counterparts. In the Czech Republic, the significant increases in HU-DBI scores occurred after the first academic year when the students received preventive dentistry courses; therefore, one can put forward that early implementation of preventive elements in undergraduate dental curricula may yield better and more sustainable oral health gains for the students. Future research on Czech and Slovak dental curricula need to re-evaluate the current anti-smoking components and their impact on students’ views and attitudes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/ijerph19052717/s1, Table S1. Test-re-test Reliability of HU-DBI Czech Version.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.; methodology, A.R. and M.K. (Martin Krsek); software, A.R. and J.S.; validation, V.C., J.S. and B.H.; formal analysis, A.R.; investigation, J.S. and B.H.; resources, M.K. (Miloslav Klugar) and S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, V.C., M.K. (Miloslav Klugar), M.K. (Martin Krsek) and S.A.; supervision, M.K. (Martin Krsek); project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition, M.K. (Miloslav Klugar). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Masaryk University grants no. MUNI/IGA/1104/2021 and MUNI/A/1402/2021. The INTER-EXCELLENCE grant number LTC20031 supported the work of A.R. and M.K. (Miloslav Klugar)—”Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University (Ref no. 48/2019) on 20 November 2019.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participating students for their efforts and time invested in this study. Additionally, we would like to thank Simona Šarmírová (Slovak Association of Dental Students [Slovenský spolok študentov zubného Lekárstva]), Dana Kloudová (Czech Association of Dental Students [Sdružení studentů stomatologie České republiky]), and Martin Krobot (Department of Public Health, Masaryk University) for their help in instrument validation and data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Hiroshima University Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) in English (EN), Czech (CZ), and Slovak (SK).
Table A1. Hiroshima University Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) in English (EN), Czech (CZ), and Slovak (SK).
#LanguageQuestion Otázka OtázkaAgree Souhlasím SúhlasímDisagree Nesouhlasím Nesúhlasím
1ENI do not worry much about visiting the dentist.□□
CZNemám moc velký strach z návštěvy zubaře.□□
SKNezáleží mi na návštevách u zubného lekára.□□
2ENMy gum tends to bleed when I brush my teeth.□□
CZKdyž si čistím zuby, moje dásně mají sklon krvácet.□□
SKMoje ďasná majú tendenciu krvácať pri čistení zubov.□□
3ENI worry about the color of my teeth.□□
CZZáleží mi na barvě mých zubů.□□
SKZáleží mi na farbe mojich zubov.□□
4ENI have noticed some white sticky deposits on my teeth.□□
CZVšiml(a) jsem si bílých lepivých nánosů na mých zubech.□□
SKVšimla/všimol som si biele usadeniny na mojich zuboch.□□
5ENI use a child sized toothbrush.□□
CZPoužívám zubní kartáček s malou hlavičkou.□□
SKPoužívam zubnú kefku detskej veľkosti.□□
6ENI think that I cannot help having false teeth when I am old.□□
CZMyslím si, že ve stáří budu nosit zubní protézy a nemůžu s tím nic dělat.□□
SKMyslím, že sa v budúcnosti nevyhnem noseniu protézy.□□
7ENI am bothered by the color of my gum.□□
CZVadí mi barva mých dásní.□□
SKTrápi ma farba mojich ďasien.□□
8ENI think my teeth are getting worse despite my daily brushing.□□
CZMyslím si, že stav mých zubů se zhoršuje, i přesto, že si je každý den čistím.□□
SKAj napriek dennému čisteniu zubov mám pocit, že sa stav mojich zubov zhoršuje.□□
9ENI brush each of my teeth carefully.□□
CZPečlivě si čistím každý zub zvlášť.□□
SKČistím si poctivo každý zub.□□
10ENI have never been taught professionally how to brush.□□
CZNikdy jsem nebyl(a) odborně poučen(a), jak si mám čistit zuby.□□
SKNikdy som neabsolvoval sedenie s hygienistkou ohľadom správnej techniky čistenia zubov.□□
11ENI think I can clean my teeth well without using toothpaste.□□
CZMyslím si, že si mohu dobře vyčistit zuby i bez použití zubní pasty.□□
SKMyslím, že si viem dobre vyčistiť zuby bez použitia zubnej pasty.□□
12ENI often check my teeth in a mirror after brushing.□□
CZPo čištění často kontroluji své zuby v zrcadle.□□
SKČasto si kontrolujem zuby po vyčistení v zrkadle.□□
13ENI worry about having bad breath.□□
CZMám obavy, že je mi cítit z úst.□□
SKObávam sa halitózy.□□
14ENIt is impossible to prevent gum disease with tooth brushing alone.□□
CZNení možné předcházet onemocnění dásní pouze pomocí čištění zubů.□□
SKJe nemožné predísť gingivitíde len s čistením zubov zubnou kefkou.□□
15ENI put off going to dentist until I have a toothache.□□
CZOdkládám návštěvu zubního lékaře, dokud mě zuby nebolí.□□
SKOdkladám návštevu zubára až kým ma nezačnú bolieť zuby.□□
16ENI have used a dye to see how clean my teeth are.□□
CZPoužil(a) jsem barvící detektor plaku, abych si zkontroloval(a), jak jsou mé zuby vyčištěné.□□
SKPoužil som v minulosti plak indikátor na zlepšenie orálnej hygieny.□□
17ENI use a toothbrush which has hard bristles.□□
CZPoužívám kartáček s tvrdými štětinami.□□
SKPoužívam zubnú kefku s tvrdými štetinami.□□
18ENI do not feel I have brushed well unless I brush with hard strokes.□□
CZNemám pocit vyčištěných zubů, pokud na kartáček hodně netlačím.□□
SKNemám pocit čistých zubov pokiaľ netlačím na zubnú kefku.□□
19ENI feel I sometimes take too much time to brush my teeth.□□
CZNěkdy mám pocit, že mi čištění zubů bere příliš mnoho času.□□
SKMám pocit, že umývanie zubov mi zaberá príliš veľa času.□□
20ENI have had my dentist tell me that I brush very well.□□
CZMůj zubní lékař mi řekl, že si čistím zuby velmi dobře.□□
SKZubný lekár ma pochválil za orálnu hygiene.□□
21ENI find myself using my smartphone/compute longer than I planned.□□
CZPoužívám svůj smartphone nebo počítač déle, než jsem plánoval(a).□□
SKPoužívam svoj počítač alebo telefón dlhšie, než by som chcel.□□
22ENI consume tobacco at least once a week.□□
CZAlespoň jednou týdně kouřím cigarety.□□
SKMinimálne jeden krát za týždeň užívam tabakové výrobky.□□
23ENI drink alcohol at least once a week.□□
CZAlespoň jednou týdně mám alkoholický nápoj.□□
SKMinimálne jeden krát do týždňa pijem alkohol.□□
24ENI go to the dentist/ hygienist for regular check-up at least once a year.□□
CZAlespoň jednou ročně navštěvuji zubního lékaře nebo dentální hygienistku.□□
SKNavštevujem zubného lekára/hygienistku minimálne jedenkrát za rok.□□
Items no. 1–20 are the original HU-DBI items, and the items in bold font are used to compute the overall score. The verb “worry” in item no. 1 was not translated equivalently in Czech and Slovak versions, and the term “child-sized toothbrush” in item no. 5 was not identical in both versions.

References

  1. World Health Assembly Resolution Paves the Way for Better Oral Health Care. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-05-2021-world-health-assembly-resolution-paves-the-way-for-better-oral-health-care (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  2. Sheiham, A.; Watt, R.G. The Common Risk Factor Approach: A rational basis for promoting oral health. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2000, 28, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreño, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral Diseases: A Global Public Health Challenge; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 394, pp. 249–260. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jin, L.J.; Lamster, I.B.; Greenspan, J.S.; Pitts, N.B.; Scully, C.; Warnakulasuriya, S. Global burden of oral diseases: Emerging concepts, management and interplay with systemic health. Oral Dis. 2016, 22, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Migliorati, C.A.; Madrid, C. The interface between oral and systemic health: The need for more collaboration. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2007, 13, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Skaret, E.; Soevdsnes, E.K. Behavioural science in dentistry. The role of the dental hygienist in prevention and treatment of the fearful dental patient. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2005, 3, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Werner, H.; Hakeberg, M.; Dahlström, L.; Eriksson, M.; Sjögren, P.; Strandell, A.; Svanberg, T.; Svensson, L.; Wide Boman, U. Psychological Interventions for Poor Oral Health. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Schou, L. The relevance of behavioural sciences in dental practice. Int. Dent. J. 2000, 50, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Rizvi, N.; Livny, A.; Chestnutt, I.; Virtanen, J.; Gallagher, J.E. Dental Public Health Education in Europe: A survey of European Dental Schools to determine current practice and inform a core undergraduate programme. Community Dent. Health 2020, 37, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wagle, M.; Trovik, T.A.; Basnet, P.; Acharya, G. Do dentists have better oral health compared to general population: A study on oral health status and oral health behavior in Kathmandu, Nepal. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ghaffari, M.; Rakhshanderou, S.; Ramezankhani, A.; Buunk-Werkhoven, Y.A.B.; Noroozi, M.; Armoon, B. Are educating and promoting interventions effective in oral health?: A systematic review. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2018, 16, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Stein, C.; Santos, N.M.L.; Hilgert, J.B.; Hugo, F.N. Effectiveness of oral health education on oral hygiene and dental caries in schoolchildren: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2018, 46, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ucheka, P.; Cinar, A.B.; Ling, J.; Derek, R. A systematic review of the use of common behavioural interventions in oral health and diabetes management. Orapuh J. 2021, 2, e819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. de Silva, A.M.; Hegde, S.; Akudo Nwagbara, B.; Calache, H.; Gussy, M.G.; Nasser, M.; Morrice, H.R.; Riggs, E.; Leong, P.M.; Meyenn, L.K.; et al. Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Cooper, A.M.; O’Malley, L.A.; Elison, S.N.; Armstrong, R.; Burnside, G.; Adair, P.; Dugdill, L.; Pine, C. Primary school-based behavioural interventions for preventing caries. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Langford, R.; Bonell, C.P.; Jones, H.E.; Pouliou, T.; Murphy, S.M.; Waters, E.; Komro, K.A.; Gibbs, L.F.; Magnus, D.; Campbell, R. The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Al-wesabi, A.A.; Abdelgawad, F.; Sasahara, H.; El Motayam, K. Oral health knowledge, attitude and behaviour of dental students in a private university. BDJ Open 2019, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Polychronopoulou, A.; Kawamura, M. Oral self-care behaviours: Comparing Greek and Japanese dental students. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2005, 9, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Komabayashi, T.; Kwan, S.Y.L.; Hu, D.Y.; Kajiwara, K.; Sasahara, H.; Kawamura, M. A comparative study of oral health attitudes and behaviour using the Hiroshima University—Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) between dental students in Britain and China. J. Oral Sci. 2005, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Stacey, F.; Heasman, P.A.; Heasman, L.; Hepburn, S.; McCracken, G.I.; Preshaw, P.M. Smoking cessation as a dental intervention—Views of the profession. Br. Dent. J. 2006, 201, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vollath, S.E.; Bobak, A.; Jackson, S.; Sennhenn-Kirchner, S.; Kanzow, P.; Wiegand, A.; Raupach, T. Effectiveness of an innovative and interactive smoking cessation training module for dental students: A prospective study. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 24, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Monaghan, N. What is the role of dentists in smoking cessation? Br. Dent. J. 2002, 193, 611–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Palacios, C.; Joshipura, K.J.; Willett, W.C. Nutrition and health: Guidelines for dental practitioners. Oral Dis. 2009, 15, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Curran, A.E.; Caplan, D.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Paynter, L.; Gizlice, Z.; Champagne, C.; Ammerman, A.S.; Agans, R. Dentists’ Attitudes About Their Role in Addressing Obesity in Patients: A national survey. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2010, 141, 1307–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kelly, S.A.M.; Moynihan, P.J. Attitudes and practices of dentists with respect to nutrition and periodontal health. Br. Dent. J. 2008, 205, E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Riad, A.; Abdulqader, H.; Morgado, M.; Domnori, S.; Koščík, M.; Mendes, J.J.; Klugar, M.; Kateeb, E. Global Prevalence and Drivers of Dental Students’ COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kateeb, E.; Danadneh, M.; Pokorná, A.; Klugarová, J.; Abdulqader, H.; Klugar, M.; Riad, A. Predictors of Willingness to Receive COVID-19 Vaccine: Cross-Sectional Study of Palestinian Dental Students. Vaccines 2021, 9, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Riad, A.; Huang, Y.; Abdulqader, H.; Morgado, M.; Domnori, S.; Koščík, M.; Mendes, J.J.; Klugar, M.; Kateeb, E. IADS-SCORE Universal Predictors of Dental Students’ Attitudes towards COVID-19 Vaccination: Machine Learning-Based Approach. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lenčová, E.; Pikhart, H.; Broukal, Z. Early childhood caries trends and surveillance shortcomings in the Czech Republic. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Alexa, J.; Rečka, L.; Votápková, J.; Van Ginneken, E.; Spranger, A.; Wittenbecher, F. Health Systems in Transition. Czech Repub. Health Syst. Rev. 2015, 17, 117. [Google Scholar]
  31. Smatana, M.; Pažitný, P.; Kandilaki, D.; Laktišová, M.; Sedláková, D.; Palušková, M.; Van Ginneken, E.; Spranger, A. Health Systems in Transition: Slovakia. Slovakia Health Syst. Rev. 2016, 18, 150. [Google Scholar]
  32. Masaryk University Dentistry—Master’s Studies. Available online: https://www.muni.cz/en/bachelors-and-masters-study-programmes/23446-zubni-lekarstvi (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  33. Kawamura, M. Dental behavioral science. The relationship between perceptions of oral health and oral status in adults. Hiroshima Daigaku Shigaku Zasshi. 1988, 20, 273–286. [Google Scholar]
  34. Komabayashi, T.; Kawamura, M.; Kim, K.J.; Wright, F.A.C.; Declerck, D.; Freire, M.D.C.M.; Hu, D.Y.; Honkala, E.; Lévy, G.; Kalwitzki, M.; et al. The hierarchical cluster analysis of oral health attitudes and behaviour using the Hiroshima University—Dental Behavioural Inventory (HU-DBI) among final year dental students in 17 countries. Int. Dent. J. 2006, 56, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kawamura, M.; Sasahara, H.; Kawabata, K.; Iwamoto, Y.; Konishi, K.; Wright, F.A.C. Relationship between CPITN and oral health behaviour in Japanese adults. Aust. Dent. J. 1993, 38, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Harvard Humanitarian Initiative Welcome to KoBoToolbox. Available online: https://support.kobotoolbox.org/welcome.html (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  37. Von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. UroToday Int. J. 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Jesseniova Lekárska Fakulta UK Študijný Program Zubné Lekárstvo. Available online: https://www.jfmed.uniba.sk/studium/uchadzaci/studijne-programy/studijny-program-zubne-lekarstvo/ (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  39. Slovenský Spolok Študentov Zubného Lekárstva. Available online: https://ssszl.sk/ (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  40. Inštitút Zamestnanosti Počet Študentov Zubárstva. Available online: https://www.iz.sk/30-grafov-o-zdravotnictve/studenti-zubari (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  41. Slovenská Komora Zubných Lekárov (SKZL) Aktuálna Situácia Zubného Lekárstva na Slovensku. Available online: https://www.skzl.sk/images/2019/TS/TS.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  42. Největší Lékařská Fakulta v ČR Má Tři Tisíce Studentů. Available online: https://www.doktorvlach.cz/2014/06/05/nejvetsi-lekarska-fakulta-v-cr-ma-tri-tisice-studentu/ (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) Epi InfoTM for Windows. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/pc.html (accessed on 25 December 2020).
  44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Population Survey or Descriptive Study. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/user-guide/statcalc/samplesize.html (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  45. Riad, A.; Al-Khanati, N.M.; Issa, J.; Zenati, M.; Abdesslem, N.B.; Attia, S.; Krsek, M.; Afrashtehfar, K.; Tchounwou, P.B. Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of Arab Dental Students: Multi-National Cross-Sectional Study and Literature Analysis 2000–2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Riad, A.; Põld, A.; Olak, J.; Howaldt, H.-P.; Klugar, M.; Krsek, M.; Attia, S. Estonian Dental Students’ Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours (KAB): National Survey-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. RIAD, A.; Buchbender, M.; Howaldt, H.-P.; Klugar, M.; Krsek, M.; Attia, S. Oral Health Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours (KAB) of German Dental Students: Descriptive Cross-sectional Study. Front. Med. 2022, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Marx, R.G.; Menezes, A.; Horovitz, L.; Jones, E.C.; Warren, R.F. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003, 56, 730–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. World Health Organization (WHO) Process of Translation and Adaptation of Instruments. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20200416020239/https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ (accessed on 19 January 2022).
  52. World Medical Association. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA-J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Proton Technologies AG General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance Guidelines. Available online: https://gdpr.eu/ (accessed on 1 May 2020).
  54. Wieslander, V.; Leles, C.; Srinivasan, M. Evaluation of oral-health behavioral attitudes of dental students in Switzerland and Brazil. J. Oral Sci. 2021, 63, 326–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dias, A.R.d.S.S. Atitudes e Comportamentos de Saúde Oral em Estudantes de Medicina Dentária em Portugal e na Holanda—Um Estudo Comparativo; Universidade Católica Portuguesa: Lisboa, Portugal, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kawamura, M.; Honkala, E.; Widström, E.; Komabayashi, T. Cross-cultural differences of self-reported oral health behaviour in Japanese and Finnish dental students. Int. Dent. J. 2000, 50, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gajić, M.; Lalić, M.; Kalevski, K.; Lazić, E.; Pavlović, M.; Ivanović, M.; Milić, J.; Matijević, D.; Vojinović, J. The application of artificial intelligence algorithms for testing the correlation between the state of oral health and adolescent behavior concerning oral health. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2021, 78, 858–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Pacauskiene, I.M.; Smailiene, D.; Siudikienė, J.; Savanevskyte, J.; Nedzelskiene, I. Self-reported oral health behavior and attitudes of dental and technology students in Lithuania. Stomatologija 2014, 16, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Badovinac, A.; Božić, D.; Vučinac, I.; Vešligaj, J.; Vražić, D.; Plancak, D. Oral health attitudes and behavior of dental students at the University of Zagreb, Croatia. J. Dent. Educ. 2013, 77, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Dumitrescu, A.L.; Kawamura, M.; Sasahara, H. An assessment of oral self-care among Romanian dental students using the Hiroshima University--Dental Behavioural Inventory. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2007, 5, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. Paraskevas, S.; Timmerman, M.F.; van der Velden, U.; van der Weijden, G.A. Additional Effect of Dentifrices on the Instant Efficacy of Toothbrushing. J. Periodontol. 2006, 77, 1522–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Valkenburg, C.; Slot, D.E.; Bakker, E.W.P.; Van der Weijden, F.A. Does dentifrice use help to remove plaque? A systematic review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 1050–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Sälzer, S.; Graetz, C.; Dörfer, C.E.; Slot, D.E.; Van der Weijden, F.A. Contemporary practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease. Periodontol. 2000 2020, 84, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Olszowski, T.; Walczak, A.; Janiszewska-Olszowska, J.; Milona, M.; Higieny, Z.; Zdrowia Publicznego, E.; Uniwersytet Medyczny Szczecinie, P.; Stomatologii Ogólnej, Z. Self-assessment of oral health behaviors among dental students of Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin. Problic Hig. Epidemiol. 2012, 93, 798–803. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kim, K.J.; Komabayashi, T.; Moon, S.E.; Goo, K.M.; Okada, M.; Kawamura, M. Oral health attitudes/behavior and gingival self-care level of Korean dental hygiene students. J. Oral Sci. 2001, 43, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lujo, M.; Meštrović, M.; Malcić, A.I.; Karlović, Z.; Matijević, J.; Jukić, S. Knowledge, attitudes and habits regarding oral health in first- and final-year dental students. Acta Clin. Croat. 2016, 55, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Ivančić Jokić, N.; Bakarčić, D.; Cicvarić, O.; Šimunović-Erpušina, M.; Zukanović, A.; Hefler, G.; Nastić, V. Knowledge, attitudes and habits regarding oral health among nurses of Clinical hospital center Rijeka. Sestrin. Glas. 2021, 26, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grycová, P. The Importance and Use of Disclosing Agents in the Dental Hygienist´s Office. Available online: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/108138/130259996.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  69. Slávik, A. Dental Hygiene Awareness in Czech Republic. Available online: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/124083/130286075.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  70. Peker, K.; Uysal, O.; Bermek, G.; Uysal, Ö.; Bermek, G. Dental training and changes in oral health attitudes and behaviors in Istanbul dental students. J. Dent. Educ. 2010, 74, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Yildiz, S.; Dogan, B. Self reported dental health attitudes and behaviour of dental students in Turkey. Eur. J. Dent. 2011, 5, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Özkan Karaca, E.; Tunar, O.L. Evaluation of Oral Health Attitudes and Behaviors of Yeditepe University Dental Faculty Students. Yeditepe J. Dent. 2020, 16, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Doğan, B. Differences in Oral Health Behavior and Attitudes Between Dental and Nursing Students. J. Marmara Univ. Inst. Health Sci. 2013, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Rong, W.S.; Wang, W.J.; Yip, K.H.K. Attitudes of dental and medical students in their first and final years of undergraduate study to oral health behaviour. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2006, 10, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zimmer, S.; Öztürk, M.; Barthel, C.R.; Bizhang, M.; Jordan, R.A. Cleaning efficacy and soft tissue trauma after use of manual toothbrushes with different bristle stiffness. J. Periodontol. 2011, 82, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hara, A.T.; González-Cabezas, C.; Creeth, J.; Parmar, M.; Eckert, G.J.; Zero, D.T. Interplay between fluoride and abrasivity of dentifrices on dental erosion–abrasion. J. Dent. 2009, 37, 781–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Racki, D.N.D.O.; Comim, L.D.; Dalla Nora, Â.; Zenkner, J.E.D.A.; Alves, L.S. Is Toothbrush Bristle Stiffness Associated with Erosive Tooth Wear in Adolescents? Findings from a Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Caries Res. 2021, 55, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Klusová, M. Dental and Periodontal Health in Students of Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University. Available online: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/108133/130260004.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  79. Wiegand, A.; Schlueter, N. The Role of Oral Hygiene: Does Toothbrushing Harm? Monogr. Oral Sci. 2014, 25, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Wiegand, A.; Burkhard, J.P.M.; Eggmann, F.; Attin, T. Brushing force of manual and sonic toothbrushes affects dental hard tissue abrasion. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Wiegand, A.; Schwerzmann, M.; Sener, B.; Carolina Magalhães, A.; Roos, M.; Ziebolz, D.; Imfeld, T.; Attin, T. Impact of toothpaste slurry abrasivity and toothbrush filament stiffness on abrasion of eroded enamel—An in vitro study. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2008, 66, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ganss, C.; Schlueter, N.; Preiss, S.; Klimek, J. Tooth brushing habits in uninstructed adults—Frequency, technique, duration and force. Clin. Oral Investig. 2009, 13, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Danser, M.M.; Timmerman, M.F.; Ijzerman, Y.; Bulthuis, H.; Van Der Velden, U.; Van Der Weijden, G.A. Evaluation of the incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1998, 25, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. de Carli da Silva, G.; de Castilhos, E.D.; Masotti, A.S.; Rodrigues-Junior, S.A. Dental esthetic self-perception of Brazilian dental students. RSBO Rev. Sul-Brasileira Odontol. 2012, 9, 375–381. [Google Scholar]
  85. Curd, F.M.; Jasinevicius, T.R.; Graves, A.; Cox, V.; Sadan, A. Comparison of the shade matching ability of dental students using two light sources. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2006, 96, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jaju, R.A.; Nagai, S.; Karimbux, N.; Silva, J.D. Da Evaluating Tooth Color Matching Ability of Dental Students. J. Dent. Educ. 2010, 74, 1002–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Samra, A.P.B.; Moro, M.G.; Mazur, R.F.; Vieira, S.; De Souza, E.M.; Freire, A.; Rached, R.N. Performance of Dental Students in Shade Matching: Impact of Training. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2017, 29, E24–E32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vallittu, P.K.; Vallittu, A.S.J.; Lassila, V.P. Dental aesthetics—A survey of attitudes in different groups of patients. J. Dent. 1996, 24, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Akarslan, Z.; Sadik, B.; Erten, H.; Karabulut, E. Dental esthetic satisfaction, received and desired dental treatments for improvement of esthetics. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2009, 20, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Yin, L.; Jiang, M.; Chen, W.; Smales, R.J.; Wang, Q.; Tang, L. Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2014, 145, 750–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Theobald, A.H.; Wong, B.K.J.; Quick, A.N.; Thomson, W.M. The impact of the popular media on cosmetic dentistry. N. Z. Dent. J. 2006, 102, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  92. Nomay, N. Public attitude and awareness towards their teeth color and dental bleaching in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional survey. J. Public Health Epidemiol. 2016, 8, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Šafaříková, E. The Attitude of Non-Professional and Professional Public to Dental Hygiene in the Czech Republic. Available online: https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/103135/130205443.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  94. Czech Dental Chamber Ročenka ČSK 2020. Available online: https://www.dent.cz/o-nas/rocenky/ (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  95. Council of European Dentists (CED). The EU Manual of Dental Practice 2015; Kravitz, A.S., Bullock, A., Cowpe, J., Barnes, E., Eds.; Council of European Dentists: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  96. Cepova, E.; Cicvakova, M.; Kolarcik, P.; Markovska, N.; Geckova, A.M. Associations of multidimensional health literacy with reported oral health promoting behaviour among Slovak adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Samohyl, M.; Babjakova, J.; Vondrova, D.; Jurkovicova, J.; Stofko, J.; Kollar, B.; Hirosova, K.; Filova, A.; Argalasova, L. Factors Associated with Non-Attendance at Dental Preventive Care in Slovak High School Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Timková, S.; Kolarčik, P.; Gecková, A.M. Self-Reported Oral Health Related Behaviour and Gum Bleeding of Adolescents in Slovakia in Relation to Socioeconomic Status of Their Parents: Cross-Sectional Study Based on Representative Data Collection. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Vašíčková, J.; Hollein, T.; Sigmundová, D.; Honkala, S.; Pavelka, J.; Kalman, M. Trends in children’s toothbrushing in the Czech republic from 1994 to 2014: Results of the HBSC study. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2017, 25, S57–S59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Horowitz, A.M.; Kleinman, D.V. Oral Health Literacy: The New Imperative to Better Oral Health. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2008, 52, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Baskaradoss, J.K. Relationship between oral health literacy and oral health status. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Naghibi Sistani, M.M.; Yazdani, R.; Virtanen, J.; Pakdaman, A.; Murtomaa, H. Determinants of oral health: Does oral health literacy matter? ISRN Dent. 2013, 2013, 249591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Magisterské Studium Zubní Lékařství 2020/2021 a 2021/2022—1. Lékařská Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Available online: https://www.lf1.cuni.cz/magisterske-studium-zubni-lekarstvi-v-akademickem-roce-20162017 (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  104. Zubní Lékařství—Verze 2019: Lékařská Fakulta UP. Available online: https://www.lf.upol.cz/studenti/magisterskyprogram/studijni-plany-sylaby/zubni-lekarstvi-verze-2019/ (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  105. Lekárska Fakulta Študijný Program Zubné Lekárstvo. Available online: https://www.fmed.uniba.sk/fileadmin/lf/studium/SK/info/SP-ZL.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  106. Lekárska Fakulta Študijné Plány. Available online: https://www.upjs.sk/public/media/13729/ZL_%202018-2019.docx.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  107. The World Bank Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use (% of Adults)—Czech Republic. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.PRV.SMOK?locations=CZ (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  108. The World Bank Prevalence of Current Tobacco Use (% of Adults)—Slovak Republic. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.PRV.SMOK?locations=SK (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  109. Zatoński, W.; Przewoźniak, K.; Sulkowska, U.; West, R.; Wojtyła, A. Tobacco smoking in countries of the European Union. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2012, 19, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  110. Tobacco Control Scale. Available online: https://www.tobaccocontrolscale.org/ (accessed on 23 January 2022).
  111. Hrubá, D.; Slezák, R. Antismoking education in Czech medical and dental faculties. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2004, 8, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Mravčík, V.; Chomynová, P.; Nechanská, B.; Černíková, T.; Csémy, L. Alcohol use and its consequences in the Czech Republic. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2019, 27, S15–S28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Kážmér, L.; Csémy, L. Changing trends in adolescent alcohol use among Czech school-aged children from 1994 to 2014. J. Public Health Res. 2019, 8, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Baška, T.; Madarasová-Gecková, A.; Bašková, M.; Krajčovič, A. Decline in alcohol use among adolescents in Slovakia: A reason for optimism? Public Health 2016, 139, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Fan, X.; Peters, B.A.; Jacobs, E.J.; Gapstur, S.M.; Purdue, M.P.; Freedman, N.D.; Alekseyenko, A.V.; Wu, J.; Yang, L.; Pei, Z.; et al. Drinking alcohol is associated with variation in the human oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. Microbiome 2018, 6, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Miller, P.M.; Ravenel, M.C.; Shealy, A.E.; Thomas, S. Alcohol screening in dental patients: The prevalence of hazardous drinking and patients” attitudes about screening and advice. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2006, 137, 1692–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Šmahel, D.; Blinka, L. Problematic Internet Use in the Czech Republic: Comparison Across Age Groups. In Proceedings of the Quality of Life in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Budapest, Hungary, 22–26 August 2009. [Google Scholar]
  118. Do, K.Y.; Lee, K.S. Relationship between Problematic Internet Use, Sleep Problems, and Oral Health in Korean Adolescents: A National Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 19 02717 g001 550
Figure 1. Workflow of HU-DBI survey among Czech and Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021.
Figure 1. Workflow of HU-DBI survey among Czech and Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021.
Ijerph 19 02717 g001
Ijerph 19 02717 g002 550
Figure 2. HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students stratified by state and academic level; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Figure 2. HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students stratified by state and academic level; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Ijerph 19 02717 g002
Ijerph 19 02717 g003 550
Figure 3. HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students stratified by state and clinical experience; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Figure 3. HU-DBI score of Czech and Slovak dental students stratified by state and clinical experience; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Ijerph 19 02717 g003
Ijerph 19 02717 g004a 550Ijerph 19 02717 g004b 550
Figure 4. HU-DBI score of (a) Czech and (b) Slovak dental students stratified by smoking behaviour and academic level; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Figure 4. HU-DBI score of (a) Czech and (b) Slovak dental students stratified by smoking behaviour and academic level; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Ijerph 19 02717 g004aIjerph 19 02717 g004b
Table
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of Czech and Slovak dental students’ responding to HU-DBI Survey, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of Czech and Slovak dental students’ responding to HU-DBI Survey, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
VariableOutcomeCzech (n = 170)Slovak (n = 317)Total (n = 487)Sig.
GenderFemale125 (73.5%)247 (77.9%)372 (76.4%)0.277
Male45 (26.5%)70 (22.1%)115 (23.6%)
Academic LevelFirst Year13 (7.6%)72 (22.7%)85 (17.5%)<0.001
Second Year56 (32.9%)60 (18.9%)116 (23.8%)<0.001
Third Year25 (14.7%)45 (14.2%)70 (14.4%)0.878
Fourth Year28 (16.5%)83 (26.2%)111 (22.8%)0.015
Fifth Year48 (28.2%)30 (9.5%)78 (16%)<0.001
Sixth YearN/A27 (8.5%)27 (5.5%)N/A
Clinical ExperiencePreclinical94 (55.3%)177 (55.8%)271 (55.6%)0.909
Clinical76 (44.7%)140 (44.2%)216 (44.4%)
Chi-squared test (χ2) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 2. Health-related behaviours of Czech and Slovak dental students’ responding to HU-DBI survey, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 2. Health-related behaviours of Czech and Slovak dental students’ responding to HU-DBI survey, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
VariableOutcomeCzech
(n = 170)		Slovak
(n = 317)		Sig.Female
(n = 372)		Male
(n = 115)		Sig.Preclinical
(n = 271)		Clinical
(n = 216)		Sig.Total
(n = 487)
Tobacco SmokingYes14 (8.2%)54 (17%)0.00840 (10.8%)28 (24.3%)<0.00132 (11.8%)36 (16.7%)0.12468 (14%)
No156 (91.8%)263 (83%)332 (89.2%)87 (75.7%)239 (88.2%)180 (83.3%)419 (86%)
Alcohol DrinkingYes60 (35.3%)113 (35.6%)0.938115 (30.9%)58 (50.4%)<0.00192 (33.9%)81 (37.5%)0.416173 (35.5%)
No110 (64.7%)204 (64.4%)257 (69.1%)57 (49.6%)179 (66.1%)135 (62.5%)314 (64.5%)
Problematic
Internet Use		Yes142 (83.5%)288 (90.9%)0.017332 (89.2%)98 (85.2%)0.240240 (88.6%)190 (88%)0.838430 (88.3%)
No28 (16.5%)29 (9.1%)40 (10.8%)17 (14.8%)31 (11.4%)26 (12%)57 (11.7%)
Regular Dental Check-upYes157 (92.4%)299 (94.3%)0.396351 (94.4%)105 (91.3%)0.242257 (94.8%)199 (92.1%)0.225456 (93.6%)
No13 (7.6%)18 (5.7%)21 (5.6%)10 (8.7%)14 (5.2%)17 (7.9%)31 (6.4%)
Chi-squared test (χ2) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 3. Czech and Slovak dental students’ responses to HU-DBI items, stratified by academic level, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 3. Czech and Slovak dental students’ responses to HU-DBI items, stratified by academic level, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
ItemResponseState1st Year
(n = 85)		2nd Year
(n = 116)		3rd Year
(n = 70)		4th Year
(n = 111)		5th Year
(n = 78)		6th Year
(n = 111)		Sig. UTotal
(n = 487)		Sig. χ
No. 1AgreeCZ9 (69.2%)51 (91.1%)25 (100%)25 (89.3%)45 (93.8%)N/A0.015155 (91.2%)<0.001
SK10 (13.9%)5 (8.3%)4 (8.9%)14 (16.9%)4 (13.3%)2 (7.4%)0.38139 (12.3%)
No. 2DisagreeCZ12 (92.3%)56 (100%)25 (100%)28 (100%)48 (100%)N/A0.055169 (99.4%)<0.001
SK66 (91.7%)54 (90%)42 (93.3%)73 (88%)28 (93.3%)26 (96.3%)0.426289 (91.2%)
No. 3AgreeCZ13 (100%)52 (92.9%)21 (84%)28 (100%)46 (95.8%)N/A0.458160 (94.1%)0.288
SK69 (95.8%)58 (96.7%)42 (93.3%)81 (97.6%)28 (93.3%)27 (100%)0.284305 (96.2%)
No. 4AgreeCZ2 (15.4%)10 (17.9%)3 (12%)3 (10.7%)10 (20.8%)N/A0.66428 (16.5%)<0.001
SK26 (36.1%)15 (25%)16 (35.6%)29 (34.9%)9 (30%)6 (22.2%)0.190101 (31.9%)
No. 5AgreeCZ11 (84.6%)48 (85.7%)24 (96%)26 (92.9%)44 (91.7%)N/A0.453153 (90%)<0.001
SK1 (1.4%)0 (0%)1 (2.2%)7 (8.4%)1 (3.3%)2 (7.4%)0.12212 (3.8%)
No. 6DisagreeCZ11 (84.6%)54 (96.4%)24 (96%)28 (100%)48 (100%)N/A0.006165 (97.1%)<0.001
SK51 (70.8%)41 (68.3%)35 (77.8%)56 (67.5%)18 (60%)20 (74.1%)0.751221 (69.7%)
No. 7AgreeCZ1 (7.7%)1 (1.8%)1 (4%)0 (0%)1 (2.1%)N/A0.3184 (2.4%)0.001
SK6 (8.3%)9 (15%)7 (15.6%)7 (8.4%)2 (6.7%)2 (7.4%)0.88133 (10.4%)
No. 8DisagreeCZ12 (92.3%)52 (92.9%)23 (92%)26 (92.9%)46 (95.8%)N/A0.605159 (93.9%)<0.001
SK54 (75%)47 (78.3%)37 (82.2%)64 (77.1%)26 (86.7%)25 (92.6%)0.053253 (79.8%)
No. 9AgreeCZ9 (69.2%)44 (78.6%)20 (80%)20 (71.4%)38 (79.2%)N/A0.454131 (77.1%)0.428
SK49 (68.1%)50 (83.3%)39 (86.7%)69 (83.1%)22 (73.3%)25 (92.6%)0.013254 (80.1%)
No. 10DisagreeCZ10 (76.9%)54 (96.4%)23 (92%)27 (96.4%)46 (95.8%)N/A0.029160 (94.1%)<0.001
SK52 (72.2%)43 (71.7%)34 (75.6%)59 (71.1%)26 (86.7%)22 (81.5%)0.347236 (74.4%)
No. 11AgreeCZ7 (53.8%)50 (89.3%)19 (76%)23 (82.1%)44 (91.7%)N/A0.001143 (84.1%)<0.001
SK14 (19.4%)18 (30%)17 (37.8%)37 (44.6%)15 (50%)18 (66.7%)<0.001119 (37.5%)
No. 12AgreeCZ12 (92.3%)44 (78.6%)16 (64%)17 (60.7%)29 (60.4%)N/A0.031118 (69.4%)0.016
SK58 (80.6%)49 (81.7%)35 (77.8%)67 (80.7%)21 (70%)21 (77.8%)0.760251 (79.2%)
No. 13AgreeCZ6 (46.2%)20 (35.7%)10 (40%)10 (35.7%)16 (33.3%)N/A0.39762 (36.5%)0.567
SK17 (23.6%)21 (35%)26 (57.8%)27 (32.5%)18 (60%)15 (55.6%)0.003124 (39.1%)
No. 14DisagreeCZ10 (76.9%)51 (91.1%)18 (72%)27 (96.4%)38 (79.2%)N/A0.862144 (84.7%)<0.001
SK50 (69.4%)45 (75%)29 (64.4%)49 (59%)20 (66.7%)16 (59.3%)0.341209 (65.9%)
No. 15DisagreeCZ12 (92.3%)54 (96.4%)24 (96%)27 (96.4%)44 (91.7%)N/A0.941161 (94.7%)0.160
SK65 (90.3%)54 (90%)44 (97.8%)75 (90.4%)25 (83.3%)26 (96.3%)0.330289 (91.2%)
No. 16AgreeCZ7 (53.8%)34 (60.7%)18 (72%)20 (71.4%)40 (83.3%)N/A0.026119 (70%)<0.001
SK24 (33.3%)16 (26.7%)18 (40%)27 (32.5%)16 (53.3%)17 (63%)0.008118 (37.2%)
No. 17AgreeCZ2 (15.4%)0 (0%)1 (4%)0 (0%)0 (0%)N/A0.0063 (1.8%)<0.001
SK13 (18.1%)7 (11.7%)3 (6.7%)9 (10.8%)1 (3.3%)0 (0%)0.01833 (10.4%)
No. 18AgreeCZ0 (0%)2 (3.6%)0 (0%)2 (7.1%)2 (4.2%)N/A0.4586 (3.5%)<0.001
SK18 (25%)8 (13.3%)2 (4.4%)11 (13.3%)5 (16.7%)2 (7.4%)0.05346 (14.5%)
No. 19AgreeCZ4 (30.8%)26 (46.4%)15 (60%)17 (60.7%)28 (58.3%)N/A0.08090 (52.9%)<0.001
SK10 (13.9%)8 (13.3%)10 (22.2%)16 (19.3%)7 (23.3%)6 (22.2%)0.31857 (18%)
No. 20AgreeCZ9 (69.2%)43 (76.8%)22 (88%)26 (92.9%)43 (89.6%)N/A0.069143 (84.1%)0.102
SK53 (73.6%)46 (76.7%)35 (77.8%)66 (79.5%)23 (76.7%)24 (88.9%)0.105247 (77.9%)
U Mann–Whitney test (U) between first- vs. final-year students had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. χ Chi-squared test (χ2) between Czech vs. Slovak students had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 4. Czech and Slovak dental students’ responses to HU-DBI items, stratified by gender, clinical experience and tobacco smoking, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 4. Czech and Slovak dental students’ responses to HU-DBI items, stratified by gender, clinical experience and tobacco smoking, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
ItemResponseStateFemale
(n = 372)		Male
(n = 115)		Sig.Preclinical (n = 271)Clinical
(n = 216)		Sig.Non-Smoker
(n = 419)		Smoker
(n = 68)		Sig.
No. 1AgreeCZ116 (92.8%)39 (86.7%)0.228 *85 (90.4%)70 (92.1%)0.701145 (92.9%)10 (71.4%)0.023 *
SK31 (12.6%)8 (11.4%)0.80119 (10.7%)20 (14.3%)0.33929 (11%)10 (18.5%)0.127
Total147 (39.5%)47 (40.9%)0.796104 (38.4%)90 (41.7%)0.461174 (41.5%)20 (29.4%)0.058
No. 2DisagreeCZ124 (99.2%)45 (100%)1.000 *93 (98.9%)76 (100%)1.000 *155 (99.4%)14 (100%)1.000 *
SK226 (91.5%)63 (90%)0.697162 (91.5%)127 (90.7%)0.800240 (91.3%)49 (90.7%)1.000 *
Total350 (94.1%)108 (93.9%)0.945255 (94.1%)203 (94%)0.958395 (94.3%)63 (92.6%)0.581 *
No. 3AgreeCZ122 (97.6%)38 (84.4%)0.004 *86 (91.5%)74 (97.4%)0.188 *146 (93.6%)14 (100%)1.000 *
SK241 (97.6%)64 (91.4%)0.028 *169 (95.5%)136 (97.1%)0.441251 (95.4%)54 (100%)0.231 *
Total363 (97.6%)102 (88.7%)<0.001255 (94.1%)210 (97.2%)0.099397 (94.7%)68 (100%)0.057 *
No. 4AgreeCZ19 (15.2%)9 (20%)0.45715 (16%)13 (17.1%)0.84124 (15.4%)4 (28.6%)0.252 *
SK77 (31.2%)24 (34.3%)0.62257 (32.2%)44 (31.4%)0.88388 (33.5%)13 (24.1%)0.178
Total96 (25.8%)33 (28.7%)0.53972 (26.6%)57 (26.4%)0.964112 (26.7%)17 (25%)0.764
No. 5AgreeCZ118 (94.4%)35 (77.8%)0.003 *83 (88.3%)70 (92.1%)0.411140 (89.7%)13 (92.9%)1.000 *
SK8 (3.2%)4 (5.7%)0.308 *2 (1.1%)10 (7.1%)0.00510 (3.8%)2 (3.7%)1.000 *
Total126 (33.9%)39 (33.9%)0.99385 (31.4%)80 (37%)0.189150 (35.8%)15 (22.1%)0.026
No. 6DisagreeCZ122 (97.6%)43 (95.6%)0.609 *89 (94.7%)76 (100%)0.066 *151 (96.8%)14 (100%)1.000 *
SK177 (71.7%)44 (62.9%)0.157127 (71.8%)94 (67.1%)0.375184 (70%)37 (68.5%)0.833
Total299 (80.4%)87 (75.7%)0.275216 (79.7%)170 (78.7%)0.787335 (80%)51 (75%)0.350
No. 7AgreeCZ2 (1.2%)2 (4.4%)0.286 *3 (3.2%)1 (1.3%)0.629 *3 (1.9%)1 (7.1%)0.217 *
SK25 (10.1%)8 (11.4%)0.75222 (12.4%)11 (7.9%)0.18628 (10.6%)5 (9.3%)0.761
Total27 (7.3%)10 (8.7%)0.61125 (9.2%)12 (5.6%)0.12931 (7.4%)6 (8.8%)0.681
No. 8DisagreeCZ117 (93.6%)42 (93.3%)0.950 *87 (92.6%)72 (94.7%)0.756 *146 (93.6%)13 (92.9%)1.000 *
SK195 (78.9%)58 (82.9%)0.472138 (78%)115 (82.1%)0.358211 (80.2%)42 (77.8%)0.683
Total312 (83.9%)100 (87%)0.423225 (83%)187 (86.6%)0.281357 (85.2%)55 (80.9%)0.360
No. 9AgreeCZ98 (78.4%)33 (73.3%)0.48873 (77.7%)58 (76.3%)0.836121 (77.6%)10 (71.4%)0.740 *
SK199 (80.6%)55 (78.6%)0.712138 (78%)116 (82.9%)0.279213 (81%)41 (75.9%)0.396
Total297 (79.8%)88 (76.5%)0.445211 (77.9%)174 (80.6%)0.468334 (79.7%)51 (75%)0.376
No. 10DisagreeCZ120 (96%)40 (88.9%)0.132 *87 (92.6%)73 (96.1%)0.515 *147 (94.2%)13 (92.9%)0.587 *
SK186 (75.3%)50 (71.4%)0.512129 (72.9%)107 (76.4%)0.472196 (74.5%)40 (74.1%)0.945
Total306 (82.3%)90 (78.3%)0.336216 (79.7%)180 (83.3%)0.307343 (81.9%)53 (77.9%)0.442
No. 11AgreeCZ106 (84.8%)37 (82.2%)0.68576 (80.9%)67 (88.2%)0.195132 (84.6%)11 (78.6%)0.469 *
SK94 (38.1%)25 (35.7%)0.72149 (27.7%)70 (50%)<0.00195 (36.1%)24 (44.4%)0.250
Total200 (53.8%)62 (53.9%)0.978125 (46.1%)137 (63.4%)<0.001227 (54.2%)35 (51.5%)0.678
No. 12AgreeCZ90 (72%)28 (62.2%)0.22272 (76.6%)46 (60.5%)0.024108 (69.2%)10 (71.4%)1.000 *
SK198 (80.2%)53 (75.7%)0.419142 (80.2%)109 (77.9%)0.606212 (80.6%)39 (72.2%)0.167
Total288 (77.4%)81 (70.4%)0.127214 (79%)155 (71.8%)0.065320 (76.4%)49 (72.1%)0.441
No. 13AgreeCZ43 (34.4%)19 (42.2%)0.35036 (38.3%)26 (34.2%)0.58255 (35.3%)7 (50%)0.272
SK94 (38.1%)30 (42.9%)0.46864 (36.2%)60 (42.9%)0.22599 (37.6%)25 (46.3%)0.235
Total137 (36.8%)49 (42.6%)0.265100 (36.9%)86 (39.8%)0.511154 (36.8%)32 (47.1%)0.105
No. 14DisagreeCZ110 (88%)34 (75.6%)0.04779 (84%)65 (85.5%)0.789133 (85.3%)11 (78.6%)0.452 *
SK163 (66%)46 (65.7%)0.965124 (70.1%)85 (60.7%)0.081181 (68.8%)28 (51.9%)0.017
Total273 (73.4%)80 (69.6%)0.423203 (74.9%)150 (69.4%)0.180314 (74.9%)39 (57.4%)0.003
No. 15DisagreeCZ117 (93.6%)44 (97.8%)0.448 *90 (95.7%)71 (93.4%)0.515 *148 (94.9%)13 (92.9%)0.548 *
SK229 (92.7%)60 (85.7%)0.069163 (92.1%)126 (90%)0.515244 (92.8%)45 (83.3%)0.035 *
Total346 (93%)104 (90.4%)0.362253 (93.4%)197 (91.2%)0.373392 (93.6%)58 (85.3%)0.017
No. 16AgreeCZ87 (69.6%)32 (71.1%)0.85059 (62.8%)60 (78.9%)0.022109 (69.9%)10 (71.4%)1.000 *
SK99 (40.1%)19 (27.1%)0.04858 (32.8%)60 (42.9%)0.06597 (36.9%)21 (38.9%)0.781
Total186 (50%)51 (44.3%)0.289117 (43.2%)120 (55.6%)0.007206 (49.2%)31 (45.6%)0.584
No. 17AgreeCZ1 (0.8%)2 (4.4%)0.171 *3 (3.2%)0 (0%)0.2543 (1.9%)0 (0%)1.000 *
SK24 (9.7%)9 (12.9%)0.44823 (13%)10 (7.1%)0.09031 (11.8%)2 (3.7%)0.076
Total25 (6.7%)11 (9.6%)0.30826 (9.6%)10 (4.6%)0.03834 (8.1%)2 (2.9%)0.130
No. 18AgreeCZ3 (2.4%)3 (6.7%)0.190 *2 (2.1%)4 (5.3%)0.4096 (3.8%)0 (0%)1.000 *
SK34 (13.8%)12 (17.1%)0.47928 (15.8%)18 (12.9%)0.45738 (14.4%)8 (14.8%)0.945
Total37 (9.9%)15 (13%)0.34730 (11.1%)22 (10.2%)0.75344 (10.5%)8 (11.8%)0.754
No. 19AgreeCZ68 (54.4%)22 (48.9%)0.525 *45 (47.9%)45 (59.2%)0.14181 (51.9%)9 (64.3%)0.375
SK43 (17.4%)14 (20%)0.61828 (15.8%)29 (20.7%)0.26049 (18.6%)8 (14.8%)0.506
Total111 (29.8%)36 (31.3%)0.76573 (26.9%)74 (34.3%)0.080130 (31%)17 (25%)0.315
No. 20AgreeCZ106 (84.8%)37 (82.2%)0.68574 (78.7%)69 (90.8%)0.032132 (84.6%)11 (78.6%)0.469 *
SK193 (78.1%)54 (77.1%)0.859134 (75.7%)113 (80.7%)0.286206 (78.3%)41 (75.9%)0.698
Total299 (80.4%)91 (79.1%)0.770208 (76.8%)182 (84.3%)0.039338 (80.7%)52 (76.5%)0.421
Chi-squared test (χ2) and Fisher’s exact test (*) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 5. HU-DBI scores of Czech and Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 5. HU-DBI scores of Czech and Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
VariableOutcomeKnowledge
(0–5)		Sig.Attitudes
(0–3)		Sig.Behaviours
(0–4)		Sig.HU-DBI
(0–12)		Sig.
StateCzech Republic4.35 ± 0.65<0.0012.66 ± 0.56<0.0012.33 ± 0.830.4889.34 ± 1.29<0.001
Slovakia3.55 ± 0.881.73 ± 0.852.28 ± 0.887.56 ± 1.73
GenderFemale3.83 ± 0.900.7722.08 ± 0.880.3762.33 ± 0.830.1858.24 ± 1.760.316
Male3.81 ± 0.871.99 ± 0.882.20 ± 0.988.00 ± 1.93
Academic LevelFirst Year3.49 ± 0.91<0.0011.68 ± 0.760.0022.20 ± 0.950.0617.38 ± 1.56<0.001
Second Year3.86 ± 0.852.23 ± 0.872.26 ± 0.898.35 ± 1.87
Third Year3.96 ± 0.792.03 ± 0.822.36 ± 0.928.34 ± 1.53
Fourth Year3.71 ± 1.021.98 ± 0.942.27 ± 0.827.96 ± 1.99
Fifth Year4.15 ± 0.762.35 ± 0.822.37 ± 0.818.87 ± 1.73
Sixth Year3.89 ± 0.582.00 ± 0.882.56 ± 0.708.44 ± 1.22
Clinical ExperiencePreclinical3.77 ± 0.870.0702.01 ± 0.850.0972.27 ± 0.910.3018.04 ± 1.750.016
Clinical3.89 ± 0.912.12 ± 0.912.34 ± 0.808.35 ± 1.86
Tobacco SmokingYes3.62 ± 1.020.0731.84 ± 0.890.0242.18 ± 0.900.2927.63 ± 2.010.012
No3.86 ± 0.862.09 ± 0.872.32 ± 0.868.27 ± 1.75
Alcohol DrinkingYes3.85 ± 0.890.5322.02 ± 0.880.4962.31 ± 0.880.7828.18 ± 1.870.798
No3.81 ± 0.892.07 ± 0.882.29 ± 0.868.18 ± 1.77
Problematic Internet UseYes3.79 ± 0.900.0152.02 ± 0.890.0162.30 ± 0.860.8178.11 ± 1.830.036
No4.11 ± 0.722.33 ± 0.722.26 ± 0.928.70 ± 1.50
Regular Dental Check-upYes3.84 ± 0.880.1632.06 ± 0.870.5562.33 ± 0.840.0418.23 ± 1.780.016
No3.58 ± 1.061.94 ± 1.001.90 ± 1.087.42 ± 2.03
Mann–Whitney test (U) and Jonckheere-Terpstra test (JT) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 6. HU-DBI scores of Czech dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 170).
Table 6. HU-DBI scores of Czech dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 170).
VariableOutcomeKnowledge
(0–5)		Sig.Attitudes
(0–3)		Sig.Behaviours
(0–4)		Sig.HU-DBI
(0–12)		Sig.
GenderFemale4.37 ± 0.670.3362.70 ± 0.520.0802.35 ± 0.810.6319.42 ± 1.230.138
Male4.29 ± 0.592.53 ± 0.632.27 ± 0.929.09 ± 1.44
Academic LevelFirst Year3.85 ± 0.800.0442.15 ± 0.800.2592.31 ± 0.860.5968.31 ± 1.550.074
Second Year4.32 ± 0.612.77 ± 0.472.36 ± 0.849.45 ± 1.14
Third Year4.40 ± 0.652.44 ± 0.652.28 ± 1.029.12 ± 1.48
Fourth Year4.46 ± 0.642.79 ± 0.422.14 ± 0.809.39 ± 1.10
Fifth Year4.42 ± 0.612.71 ± 0.502.44 ± 0.749.56 ± 1.29
Clinical ExperiencePreclinical4.28 ± 0.660.1192.60 ± 0.610.1542.33 ± 0.890.9019.20 ± 1.340.166
Clinical4.43 ± 0.622.74 ± 0.472.33 ± 0.779.50 ± 1.22
Tobacco SmokingYes4.43 ± 0.650.6202.57 ± 0.650.5902.43 ± 1.090.5419.43 ± 1.400.923
No4.34 ± 0.652.67 ± 0.552.32 ± 0.819.33 ± 1.29
Alcohol DrinkingYes4.35 ± 0.630.9722.63 ± 0.550.5382.43 ± 0.850.2129.42 ± 1.200.786
No4.35 ± 0.662.67 ± 0.562.27 ± 0.829.29 ± 1.34
Problematic Internet UseYes4.35 ± 0.650.7182.68 ± 0.540.4252.33 ± 0.810.9649.36 ± 1.280.436
No4.32 ± 0.612.57 ± 0.632.32 ± 0.989.21 ± 1.37
Regular Dental Check-upYes4.36 ± 0.630.3522.66 ± 0.560.9682.38 ± 0.770.0769.39 ± 1.230.055
No4.15 ± 0.802.69 ± 0.481.77 ± 1.308.62 ± 1.76
Mann–Whitney test (U) and Jonckheere-Terpstra test (JT) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 7. HU-DBI scores of Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 317).
Table 7. HU-DBI scores of Slovak dental students, Autumn 2021 (n = 317).
VariableOutcomeKnowledge
(0–5)		Sig.Attitudes
(0–3)		Sig.Behaviours
(0–4)		Sig.HU-DBI
(0–12)		Sig.
GenderFemale3.56 ± 0.880.6461.76 ± 0.840.3922.32 ± 0.840.1747.64 ± 1.680.248
Male3.50 ± 0.881.64 ± 0.852.16 ± 1.027.30 ± 1.88
Academic LevelFirst Year3.43 ± 0.920.0281.60 ± 0.730.0742.18 ± 0.970.0727.21 ± 1.510.002
Second Year3.43 ± 0.831.73 ± 0.862.17 ± 0.927.33 ± 1.85
Third Year3.71 ± 0.761.80 ± 0.822.40 ± 0.867.91 ± 1.40
Fourth Year3.46 ± 1.001.71 ± 0.922.31 ± 0.837.48 ± 2.00
Fifth Year3.73 ± 0.791.77 ± 0.902.27 ± 0.917.77 ± 1.79
Sixth Year3.89 ± 0.582.00 ± 1.732.56 ± 0.708.44 ± 1.22
Clinical ExperiencePreclinical3.50 ± 0.850.2051.69 ± 0.800.3172.23 ± 0.930.2407.43 ± 1.620.032
Clinical3.60 ± 0.901.78 ± 0.912.35 ± 0.827.73 ± 1.85
Tobacco SmokingYes3.41 ± 1.000.3031.65 ± 0.850.3942.11 ± 0.840.1677.17 ± 1.890.113
No3.57 ± 0.851.75 ± 0.852.32 ± 0.897.64 ± 1.69
Alcohol DrinkingYes3.58 ± 0.890.3551.70 ± 0.840.5192.25 ± 0.890.5987.53 ± 1.830.969
No3.52 ± 0.871.75 ± 0.852.30 ± 0.887.58 ± 1.68
Problematic Internet UseYes3.51 ± 0.880.0311.69 ± 0.850.0152.29 ± 0.890.7257.50 ± 1.750.033
No3.90 ± 0.772.10 ± 0.722.21 ± 0.868.21 ± 1.47
Regular Dental Check-upYes3.57 ± 0.860.0821.75 ± 0.840.0922.30 ± 0.880.2387.62 ± 1.710.017
No3.17 ± 1.041.39 ± 0.922.00 ± 0.916.56 ± 1.79
Mann–Whitney test (U) and Jonckheere-Terpstra test (JT) had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 8. Pairwise comparison of Czech dental students’ HU-DBI scores across consecutive academic levels, Autumn 2021 (n = 170).
Table 8. Pairwise comparison of Czech dental students’ HU-DBI scores across consecutive academic levels, Autumn 2021 (n = 170).
PairKnowledgeAttitudesBehavioursHU-DBI
Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.
1st Year vs. 2nd Year25.92/37.110.04222.69/37.860.00233.96/35.240.82221.88/38.040.007
2nd Year vs. 3rd Year40.05/43.120.54444.43/33.320.01441.04/40.900.97842.58/37.460.350
3rd Year vs. 4th Year26.22/27.700.69723.04/30.540.03328.40/25.750.50425.72/28.140.557
4th Year vs. 5th Year39.66/37.820.69439.96/37.650.55734.09/41.070.14936.23/39.820.481
Mann–Whitney (U) test was used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The significant values are in bold font.
Table
Table 9. Pairwise comparison of Slovak dental students’ HU-DBI scores across consecutive academic levels, Autumn 2021 (n = 317).
Table 9. Pairwise comparison of Slovak dental students’ HU-DBI scores across consecutive academic levels, Autumn 2021 (n = 317).
PairKnowledgeAttitudesBehavioursHU-DBI
Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.Mean RankSig.
1st Year vs. 2nd Year66.96/65.950.87064.22/69.230.42166.74/66.220.93565.74/67.420.798
2nd Year vs. 3rd Year49.18/58.100.10351.64/54.810.57549.73/57.370.17848.98/58.360.113
3rd Year vs. 4th Year69.43/61.830.22966.86/63.220.57567.27/63.000.50667.81/62.700.450
4th Year vs. 5th Year54.77/63.170.19056.39/58.700.72757.31/56.130.85755.87/60.130.535
5th Year vs. 6th Year28.05/30.060.59127.17/31.040.35226.45/31.830.18826.38/31.910.198
Mann–Whitney (U) test was used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 10. Predictors of state membership; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 10. Predictors of state membership; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
PredictorBetaS.E.WalddfAOR95% CISig.
Item No. 2: Disagree−1.831.172.4510.1610.016–1.5830.117
Item No. 4: Agree0.200.320.3811.220.655–2.2530.537
Item No. 6: Disagree−2.070.5116.4010.130.047–0.344<0.001
Item No. 8: Disagree−0.900.434.3610.410.176–0.9470.037
Item No. 10: Disagree−0.760.442.9210.470.196–1.1180.087
Item No. 11: Agree−1.580.2831.4510.210.118–0.357<0.001
Item No. 12: Agree0.350.291.4111.420.797–2.5160.236
Item No. 14: Disagree−0.740.315.7210.480.262–0.8760.017
Item No. 16: Agree−0.870.2611.2110.420.250–0.698<0.001
Item No. 19: Agree−1.620.2834.3210.200.115–0.340<0.001
Tobacco Smoking: Yes0.890.414.7112.431.090–5.4250.030
Problematic Internet Use: Yes0.120.360.1011.120.553–2.2790.748
Logistic regression had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. The Czech Republic was coded as “0” and Slovakia was coded “1”. All significant associations are in bold font.
Table
Table 11. Observed and predicted group membership of state; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 11. Observed and predicted group membership of state; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Observed GroupPredicted GroupCorrect Percentage
Czech RepublicSlovakia
StateCzech Republic1185269.4%
Slovakia4127687.1%
Overall 80.9%
The cut-off value is 0.50. Nagelkerke R2 = 0.527.
Table
Table 12. Predictors of tobacco smoking among Czech and Slovak dental students; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 12. Predictors of tobacco smoking among Czech and Slovak dental students; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Predictor.BetaS.E.WalddfAOR95% CISig.
State: Slovakia0.790.335.5912.201.14–4.210.018
Gender: Male0.880.299.0912.401.36–4.240.003
Alcohol Drinking: Yes0.830.289.0212.301.34–3.970.003
Item No. 14: Agree0.630.284.9111.871.08–3.260.027
Item No. 15: Agree0.650.432.3211.920.83–4.420.128
Logistic regression had been used with a significance level (Sig.) ≤ 0.05. All significant associations are in bold font.
Table
Table 13. Observed and predicted group membership of tobacco smoking among Czech and Slovak dental students; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Table 13. Observed and predicted group membership of tobacco smoking among Czech and Slovak dental students; Autumn 2021 (n = 487).
Observed GroupPredicted GroupCorrect Percentage
Non-SmokerSmoker
Tobacco
Smoking		Non-smoker416399.3%
Smoker6711.5%
Overall 85.6%
The cut-off value is 0.50. Nagelkerke R2 = 0.137.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Riad, A.; Chuchmová, V.; Staněk, J.; Hocková, B.; Attia, S.; Krsek, M.; Klugar, M. Czech and Slovak Dental Students’ Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours (KAB): Multi-Country Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19052717

AMA Style

Riad A, Chuchmová V, Staněk J, Hocková B, Attia S, Krsek M, Klugar M. Czech and Slovak Dental Students’ Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours (KAB): Multi-Country Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):2717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19052717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Riad, Abanoub, Veronika Chuchmová, Ján Staněk, Barbora Hocková, Sameh Attia, Martin Krsek, and Miloslav Klugar. 2022. "Czech and Slovak Dental Students’ Oral Health-Related Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviours (KAB): Multi-Country Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 2717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19052717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop