Using an mHealth App (iGAM) to Reduce Gingivitis Remotely (Part 2): Prospective Observational Study

Related Article See also Part 1 of this study: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2020/8/e19433/ Background: Gingivitis is a nonpainful, inflammatory condition that can be managed at home. Left untreated, gingivitis can lead to tooth loss. Periodic dental examinations are important for early diagnosis and tre...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2021-09, Vol.9 (9), p.e24955-e24955
Hauptverfasser: Tobias, Guy, Spanier, Assaf B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Related Article See also Part 1 of this study: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2020/8/e19433/ Background: Gingivitis is a nonpainful, inflammatory condition that can be managed at home. Left untreated, gingivitis can lead to tooth loss. Periodic dental examinations are important for early diagnosis and treatment of gum diseases. To contain the spread of the coronavirus, governments, including in Israel, have restricted movements of their citizens which might have caused routine dental checkups to be postponed. Objective: This study aimed to examine the ability of a mobile health app, iGAM, to reduce gingivitis, and to determine the most effective interval between photograph submissions. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study with 160 unpaid participants divided into 2 equal groups using the iGAM app was performed. The intervention group photographed their gums weekly for 8 weeks. The wait-list control group photographed their gums at the time of recruitment and 8 weeks later. After photo submission, the participants received the same message “we recommended that you read the information in the app regarding oral hygiene habits.” A single-blinded researcher examined all the images and scored them according to the Modified Gingival Index (MGI). Results: The average age of the intervention group was 26.77 (SD 7.43) and 28.53 (SD 10.44) for the wait-list control group. Most participants were male (intervention group: 56/75,74.7%; wait-list control group: 34/51, 66.7%) and described themselves as “secular”; most were “single” non-smokers (intervention group: 56/75, 74.7%; wait-list control group: 40/51, 78.4%), and did not take medications (intervention group: 64/75, 85.3%; wait-list control group: 40/51, 78.4%). A total of 126 subjects completed the study. A statistically significant difference (P
ISSN:2291-5222
2291-5222
DOI:10.2196/24955