{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021664766248574687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025370581527936146, 'mean_word_length': 4.264066016504126, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of oral hygiene status of young adult population of age group 20-25 years in the urban and rural areas

Oral hygiene status is very important, it shows person’s attitude towards the oral hygiene and also oral cavity is first entry for food and its digestion. The presence of food debris and calculus on tooth surface reflects the oral hygiene status of the person. Objectives of the Study: To observe the oral hygiene status of young adult of age group of 20-25 years in the rural and urban area of Patna. Materials and Methods: Cross sectional descriptive study of rural and urban population of 20-25 years of age. Results: The inter group variation in OHI-S is very small and not significant in the urban populations. The inference of oral hygiene status of rural population is showing that comes under poor oral hygiene status while the OHI-S of urban area comes under fair oral hygiene status but it is on higher side of it.


Introduction
Oral hygiene status is very important, it shows person's attitude towards the oral hygiene and also oral cavity is first entry for food and its digestion. The presence of food debris and calculus on tooth surface reflects the oral hygiene status of the person. These calculus, food debris and plaque are main etiological factors for periodontal destruction. The periodontium acts as the supporting and investing structure of tooth. So the disease of periodontium resulted as loss of supporting and investing structure. The poor oral hygiene is also one of the main etiological factors for halitosis i.e. bad breath. Good oral hygiene is the mirror of the personality. So the study on oral hygiene status of the person is very important to decide the necessity oral health education and treatment need of the population of particular area. Most of the studies on the oral hygiene status of the population were conducted in India either in rural areas or in urban areas but very few comparative studies are published. Again in India large populations are present in the age group 20-25. So this study is planned to conduct a comparative study on oral hygiene status of young adult population of age group 20-25 years in the urban and rural areas of Patna.

Review of Literature
In 2006 Anil S Hari S and Vijay Kumar T 3 assessed periodontal condition of urban and rural areas of Trivandrum and they found that oral hygiene status of rural area is poorer in rural areas than the urban areas. Maity A.K Banarjee K L and T K PAL 4 (2007) examined 5960 subjects in rural population and found calculus was wide spread in most of the subjects. Mehta et al. 1 (2008) conducted a study on oral hygiene status of rural population of Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra and found oral hygiene status was poor in this population. Loe et al. 2 conducted a study to evaluate the oral hygiene status of Shri lankan tea workers and he found oral hygiene status is very poor among them. Kapoor et al. 1    The mean calculus index of rural population shows its variation from 2.4 to 2.9 in different age group but they do not show any particular correlation between these age groups. The difference were not statistically significant The mean debris index of rural population shows its variation from 2.1 to 2.6 in different age group but they do not show any particular correlation between these age groups. The difference were not statistically significant.

Fig 3: Shows relationship between mean OHI-S of group R1, R2, R3 in rural population
The Mean Oral Hygiene Index-S of rural population shows its variation from 4.6 to 5.1 in different age group but they do not show any particular correlation between these age groups. The difference were not statistically significant. The interpretation of Mean Oral Hygiene Index of rural population shows that these population have oral hygiene status is poor.

Graph1: Shows comparison of OHI status of urban and rural population
The variation within the group either urban or rural is very small. The interpretation of the oral hygiene status of rural area population is poor while the oral hygiene status of urban area is fare.

Discussion
The results of the present study showed mean CI index (MCI) was 2.7 in the age group of 20-21yrs 2.5 in 22-23yrs age group and 2.6 in age group of 24-25yrs in rural population. The inter group variation in MCI is very small and not significant in the rural populations. The mean debris index (MDI) was 2.3 in the age group of 20-21yrs, 2.3 in 22-23yrs age group and 2.5 in age group of 24-25yrs in rural population. The inter group variation in MDI is very small and not significant in the rural populations. Mean Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S) was 4.9 in the age group of 20-21yrs 4.8 in 22-23yrs age group and 5.1 in age group of 24-25yrs in rural population. The inter group variation in OHI-S is very small and not significant in the rural populations. The mean CI index (MCI) was 1.25 in the age group of 20-21yrs, 1.75 in 22-23yrs age group and 1.25 in age group of 24-25yrs in urban population. The inter group variation in MCI is very small and not significant in the urban populations. The mean debris index (MDI) was 2.3 in the age group of 20-21yrs 2.3 in 22-23yrs age group and 2.5 in age group of 24-25yrs in urban population. The inter group variation in MDI is very small and not significant in the urban populations. Mean Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S) was 2.7 in the age group of 20-21yrs 3.1 in 22-23yrs age group and 2.55 in age group of 24-25yrs in urban population. The inter group variation in OHI-S is very small and not significant in the urban populations. The inference of oral hygiene status of rural population is showing that comes under poor oral hygiene status while the OHI-S of urban area comes under fair oral hygiene status but it is on higher side of it. When simplified oral hygiene index of rural and urban population was compared, then it was observed that oral hygiene status of rural population was poorer than the urban population and the difference was statistically significant. The result of present study is coincide with the finding obtained by Anil S, Hari S and Vijay Kumar T (2006). CI observed in present study showed similar pattern as observed by Maity AK, Banarjee K L and T K PAL (2007).

Conclusion
The pattern of oral hygiene status was similar in both rural and urban areas. However oral hygiene status of rural population was poorer than the urban area. This may happens due to difference in method and frequency of teeth cleaning. In urban population means of teeth cleaning was tooth brush and tooth paste and some subjects clean their tooth twice daily while in rural tooth cleaning methods are with datoon, tooth powder and by finger are common and no one was cleaning their teeth twice daily.
In future for more precise result this study may be conducted on large population and some other marker for periodontal status like bleeding on probing, periodontal pocket, loss of attachment may be included as a marker for periodontal status.