MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve respondents from three major ethnicities in Malaysia were selected from the quantitative study on dietary pattern and colorectal cancer carried out earlier in this study. In-depth interviews (IDI), conducted from April until June 2012, were mainly in the Malay language with additional use of English and continued until the saturation point was reached. All interviews were autorecorded so that verbatim transcriptions could be created.
RESULTS: Causes of colorectal cancer were categorized into internal and external factors. The majority of respondents agreed that there is an association between Western foods and colorectal cancer. Malaysian traditional diet was not related to colorectal cancer as less preservative agents were used. Malaysian diet preparation consisting of taste of cooking (spicy, salty and sour foods) plus type of cooking (fry, grilled and smoked) were considered causes of colorectal cancer. All respondents changed their dietary pattern to healthy food after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Advice from doctors regarding suitable food for colorectal cancer was useful in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS: Eating outside, use of food flavoring ingredients and preservative agents were considered to be the main factors causing colorectal cancer. All respondents admitted that they changed to a healthy diet after being diagnosed with colorectal cancer.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year old male patient, presented to the department with a chief complaint of sensitivity in his upper right back tooth due to attrition. After assessing the pulp status, root canal therapy was planned for the tooth. During the procedure, it was noticed that the dental bur slipped out of the hand piece and the patient had accidentally ingested it. The patient was conscious and had no trouble while breathing at the time of ingestion of the bur although he had mild cough which lasted for a short duration. The dental procedure was aborted immediately and the patient was taken to the hospital for emergency care. The presence and location of the dental bur was confirmed using chest and abdominal x-rays and it was subsequently retrieved by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedure under general anaesthesia on the same day as a part of the emergency procedure. The analysis of this case reaffirms the importance of the use of physical barriers such as rubber dams and gauze screens as precautionary measures to prevent such incidents from occurring.
CONCLUSION: Ingestion of instruments are uncertain and hazardous complications to encounter during a dental procedure. The need for physical barrier like rubber dam is mandatory for all dental procedures. However, the dentist should be well trained to handle such medical emergencies and reassure the patient by taking them into confidence. Each incident encountered should be thoroughly documented to supply adequate guidance for treatment aspects. This would fulfil the professional responsibilities of the dentist/ clinician and may help avoid possible legal and ethical issues. This case report emphasizes on the need for the usage of physical barriers during dental procedures in order to avoid medical emergencies.
Methods: In this present study, two protein extractions methods were performed to analyze female Ae. aegyti proteome, via TCA acetone precipitation extraction method and a commercial protein extraction reagent CytoBusterTM. Then, protein identification was performed by LC-ESI-MS/MS and followed by functional protein annotation analysis.
Results: The CytoBusterTM reagent gave the highest protein yield with a mean of 475.90 µg compared to TCA acetone precipitation extraction showed 283.15 µg mean of protein. LC-ESI-MS/MS identified 1,290 and 890 proteins from the CytoBusterTM reagent and TCA acetone precipitation, respectively. When comparing the protein class categories in both methods, there were three additional categories for proteins identified using CytoBusterTM reagent. The proteins were related to scaffold/adaptor protein (PC00226), protein binding activity modulator (PC00095) and intercellular signal molecule (PC00207). In conclusion, the CytoBusterTM protein extraction reagent showed a better performance for the extraction of proteins in term of the protein yield, proteome coverage and extraction speed.