Methods: One hundred and eighty-eight healthy subjects aged between 18 and 50 years with varying oral hygiene status who gave consent to participate were included in this cross-sectional study. The subjects were recruited from primary oral health care of MAHSA University. Oral hygiene of all the participants was measured using Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Stimulated saliva collected using paraffin wax was analyzed for salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium. The relationship between salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium levels with OHI-S was assessed using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient; the strength of relationship was assessed by multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found a weak positive correlation (r = 0.179, p = 0.014) between salivary statherin and OHI-S; weak negative correlation (r = -0.187, p = 0.010) between salivary aPRP and OHI-S; and moderate negative correlation between salivary statherin and salivary aPRP levels (r = -0.50, p oral hygiene is associated with increased statherin and reduced aPRP levels in saliva. Thus, these salivary components may have a role in predicting oral hygiene status.
Materials and Methods: Fifty-nine children were recruited in this study that were allocated randomly into each group with twenty children as follows: group 1: pictorial, group 2: video, and group 3: control. Mean plaque and gingival scores were noted before and after the use of different interventions. Oral hygiene was categorized as "excellent," "good," and "fair." Gingival health was categorized as "healthy," "mild gingivitis," and "moderate gingivitis."
Results: Thirty-four children (57.6%) were from 12-13 years of age bracket, and 25 (42.4%) belonged to 14-16 years of age. Regarding gender, there were 37 (62.7%) males and 22 (37.3%) females. About comparison of mean gingival and plaque scores before and after interventions in each group, a significant difference was found in group 1 (p < 0.001) and group 2 (p < 0.001), as compared to group 3 where the difference in scores was not significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Maintaining oral health requires the compliance of individuals to perform different methods of preventive dentistry, such as tooth brushing and use of dental floss. The use of different oral hygiene educational interventions such as pictorial and video methods have been proven and useful for hearing impaired children in improving oral health.
Materials and methods: Sixty (60) extracted sound Maxilla (Mx) and Mandibular (Mn) premolars were randomly divided into 2 groups (test and control). Artificial WSLs were produced on buccal surface of teeth and were immersed in artificial saliva for 8 weeks. Colour components (L∗, a∗, b∗) and surface roughness (Sa∗) were assessed on 40 teeth using colour difference meter RD-100 and Alicona® Infinite Focus profilometer respectively. The measurements were done at baseline (T1), directly after artificial WSLs (T2), after 24 hours immersed in saliva and application of resin (T3) and immersion in artificial saliva for 1 (T4), 2 (T5), 4 (T6), 6 (T7) and 8 (T8) weeks. SEM images analysis were carried out on 20 teeth in four time points.
Results: The values of L∗ (lightness), b∗ (yellow/blue) and Sa∗ (surface roughness) are gradually reduced to the baseline value. Whereas, the value of a∗ gradually increased with distinct treatment time to achieve the baseline value. The higher value of L∗ and Sa∗, the whiter the lesion suggesting higher degree of enamel demineralization and surface roughness. Lower L∗ values suggest a masking colour effect.
Conclusion: The material produced favorable esthetics on colour and the surface roughness of teeth at distinct treatment times. It is recommended to be used to improve WSL post orthodontic treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen individuals with a range of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and normal oral mucosa were included. Five areas of the oral cavity were photographed by three dentists using mobile phone cameras with 5 MP-13 MP resolutions. On the same day, the patients were given COE by two oral medicine specialists (OMS) and 3 weeks later, they reviewed the images taken using the phone, and concordance was examined between the two by Kappa statistics. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis using the phone images were also measured. Pre- and post-program questionnaires were answered by both the dentists and the OMS to determine the feasibility of integrating teledentistry in their clinical practice.
RESULTS: The Kappa values in determining the presence of lesion, category of lesion (OPMD or not), and making referral decision were moderate to strong (0.64-1.00). The overall sensitivity was more than 70% and specificity was 100%. The false negative rate decreased as the camera resolution increased. All dentists agreed that the process could facilitate early detection of oral mucosal lesion, and was easy to use in the clinic.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that teledentistry can be used for communication between primary care and OMS and could be readily integrated into clinical setting for patient management.
METHODS: Two villages were selected as the sampling frame based on prevalence of tobacco and betel quid chewing habit. Respondents were asked to check their mouth for presence of lesion or abnormalities. Education on oral cancer, including MSE, was provided. Subsequently, respondents were asked to perform MSE. Finally, a clinical oral examination (COE) was done by a specialist and the presence of oral mucosal lesions was recorded.
RESULTS: Almost 64.5 percent of respondents exhibited high levels of difficulty and low mucosal visualization and retracting ability, whereas 3.0 percent demonstrated high attention level when performing MSE. Prevalence of oral mucosal lesions was 59.0 percent, whereas the prevalence of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) was 9.0 percent. Detection of oral lesions by respondents using MSE was lower than detection by the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity of MSE for detection of all types of lesions were 8.6 and 95.0 percent respectively. When analyzing each lesion type separately, MSE was found to be most sensitive in detection of swellings (10.0 percent), and most specific in identifying white lesions (97.8 percent). For detection of OPMDs, although specificity was high (98.9 percent), sensitivity (0 percent), and +LR (0) was poor.
CONCLUSION: MSE is not an effective self-screening tool for early detection of potentially malignant lesions for this population.