## 3 Results
### Overall Likeability and Functional Preferences of the OSCA  
For the intervention group, the overall likeability of the OSCA was assessed through five items, and the normality of the composite variable of likeability was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test (\(p\) = 0.081). The overall likeability and functional preferences of the OSCA for the different level of frequency users are presented in Table 5. The mean score of overall likeability for respondents in the intervention group was 5.85, with a standard deviation of 0.76, and the mean scores for the high-, moderate-, and low-frequency users were 6.36, 6.14, and 4.89, respectively. The results of investigating functional preferences for establishing capability, creating opportunity, and enhancing motivation indicated that the low-frequency users gave the functional preferences a significantly lower rating compared with the moderate- and high-frequency users after Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Control Group** & **Intervention Group** & **Total** \\  & **n (\%)** & **n (\%)** & **n (\%)** \\ \hline n & 39 (44.3) & 49 (55.7) & 88 (100) \\ _Gender_ & & & \\ Male & 18 (46.2) & 27 (55.1) & 45 (51.5) \\ _Female_ & 21 (53.8) & 22 (44.9) & 43 (48.9) \\ _Age_ & & & \\ \(<\) 35 & 2 (5.1) & 0 (0.0) & 2 (2.3) \\
35-44 & 4 (10.3) & 4 (8.2) & 8 (9.1) \\
45-54 & 11 (28.2) & 21 (42.9) & 32 (36.4) \\
55-64 & 19 (48.7) & 21 (42.9) & 40 (45.4) \\
65 or older & 3 (7.7) & 3 (6.1) & 6 (6.8) \\ _Education_ & & & \\ Less than high school & 9 (23.1) & 7 (14.3) & 16 (18.2) \\ High school & 11 (29.2) & 13 (26.5) & 24 (27.3) \\ College or university up to bachelor & 18 (46.2) & 26 (53.1) & 44 (50.0) \\ College or university up to master or PhD. & 1 (2.6) & 3 (6.1) & 4 (4.5) \\ _Smoking_ & & & \\ Yes & 9 (23.1) & 12 (24.5) & 21 (23.9) \\ No & 30 (76.9) & 37 (75.5) & 67 (76.1) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of the study participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Intervention Group**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n (\%)**} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Baseline**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Re-Evaluation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Baseline**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Re-Evaluation**} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{_Frequency of toothrushing_} & & & & \\ Not every day & 1 (2.6) & 1 (2.6) & 2 (4.1) & 0 (0.0) \\ Once a day & 11 (28.2) & 9 (23.1) & 11 (22.4) & 7 (14.3) \\ Twice a day or More than twice a day & 27 (69.2) & 29 (74.4) & 36 (73.5) & 42 (85.7) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{_Duration of toothrushing_} & & & & \\ Shorter than 1 min & 2 (5.1) & 1 (2.6) & 2 (4.1) & 1 (2.0) \\ Longer than 3 min or 1 min & 22 (56.4) & 24 (61.5) & 32 (65.3) & 15 (30.7) \\
2 min or 3 min & 15 (38.5) & 14 (35.9) & 15 (30.6) & 33 (67.3) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{_Interdental cleaning_} & & & & \\ Rarely or Never & 8 (20.5) & 2 (5.2) & 18 (36.7) & 6 (12.2) \\ A few times a week & 25 (64.1) & 30 (76.9) & 23 (46.9) & 32 (65.3) \\ At least once a day & 6 (15.4) & 7 (17.9) & 8 (16.4) & 11 (22.4) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{_Tongue cleaning_} & & & & \\ Rarely or Never & 10 (25.6) & 6 (15.4) & 12 (24.5) & 2 (4.1) \\ A few times a week & 20 (51.3) & 24 (61.5) & 29 (59.2) & 35 (71.4) \\ At least once a day & 9 (23.1) & 9 (23.1) & 8 (16.3) & 12 (24.5) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: OHBs data for both groups at baseline and re-evaluation. Figure 3: Comparison of OHS improvement between the control group and intervention group based on level of OSCA use frequency. Data are expressed as mean \(\pm\) SD. * \(p\) \(<\) 0.05 and ** \(p\) \(<\) 0.01, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe test.