METHODS: Blood samples of individuals with periodontitis (PD) (n=72) and periodontally healthy (PH) (n=62) donors were obtained from Malaysian Periodontal Database and Biobanking system (MPDBS). Genomic DNA samples were analyzed for three PTGS2 SNPs (rs5275, rs20417, rs689466,) and one DEFB1 SNP (rs1047031) using Taqman SNP genotyping assays. Notably, rs20417 and rs689466 were located in the promoter region while rs5275 and rs1047031 were located in the 3' untranslated region of the transcript. Association between the SNPs and PD were then analyzed using genotypic association analysis (additive, dominant and recessive models).
RESULTS: The allelic frequency for the rs689466-G was higher in PD group (35.2%) compared that in PH group (29.0%). However, the association of rs689466-G and other SNPs with PD was not statistically significant (at 95% CI). No associations were observed for genotypic associations between the PTGS2 and DEFB1 SNPs with PD susceptibility.
CONCLUSIONS: PTGS2 (rs5275, rs20417, and rs689466) and DEFB1 (rs1047031) polymorphism was not associated with PD in Malays, unlike the Chinese, Taiwanese & European population. This suggests that other causal variants might be involved in the development and progression of PD among Malays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomised control clinical trial at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya. A total of 66 obese patients with chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated into the treatment group (n=33) who received NSPT, while the control group (n=33) received no treatment. Four participants (2 from each group) were non-contactable 12 weeks post intervention. Therefore, their data were removed from the final analysis. The protocol involved questionnaires (characteristics and OHRQoL (Oral Health Impact Profile-14; OHIP-14)) and a clinical examination.
RESULTS: The OHIP prevalence of impact (PI), overall mean OHIP severity score (SS) and mean OHIP Extent of Impact (EI) at baseline and at the 12-week follow up were almost similar between the two groups and statistically not significant at (p=0.618), (p=0.573), and (p=0.915), respectively. However, in a within-group comparison, OHIP PI, OHIP SS, and OHIP EI showed a significant improvement for both treatment and control groups and the p values were ((0.002), (0.008) for PI), ((0.006) and (0.004) for SS) and ((0.006) and (0.002) for EI) in-treatment and control groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: NSPT did not significantly affect the OHRQoL among those obese with CP. Regardless, NSPT, functional limitation and psychological discomfort domains had significantly improved.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( NCT02508415 ). Retrospectively registered on 2nd of April 2015.
METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 233 undergraduate dental students involved with clinical teaching. This modified and validated questionnaire focusing on students' learning environment was used in order to gain relevant information related to dental clinical teaching. Six domains with different criteria applicable to clinical teaching in dentistry were selected consisting of modelling (four criteria), coaching (four criteria), scaffolding (four criteria), articulation (four criteria), reflection (two criteria) and general learning environment (six criteria). Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.
RESULTS: Majority of the students expressed positive perceptions on their clinical learning experience towards the clinical teachers in the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, in all criteria of the domains. Few negative feedbacks concerning the general learning environment were reported.
CONCLUSION: Further improvement in the delivery of clinical teaching preferably by using wide variety of teaching-learning activities can be taken into account through students' feedback on their learning experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.