MATERIALS AND METHODS: Saliva was collected from 4- to 6-year-old kindergarten students. Salivary neutrophils were obtained by instructing the subjects to rinse their mouth with 1 mL of sterile 1.5% NaCl for 30 seconds before expectorating it into a sterile glass. The expression of CFSE+CD35+ and CFSE+CD89+was measured and analyzed using flow cytometry.
RESULTS: The expression of CFSE+CD89+ in the caries-free group (2.46 ± 0.39) was significantly lower than that in the S-ECC group (3.41 ± 1.11), with a p-value of 0.0001, while the expression of CFSE+CD35+ in the caries-free group was (2.35 ± 0.56) compared with (1.54 ± 0.35) (p = 0.0001) in the S-ECC group.
CONCLUSIONS: The expression ratio of CFSE+CD89+ and CFSE+CD35+constitutes a marker for S-ECC.
Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 healthy children aged between 10 and 12 years of age who were randomly assigned to either of the groups: Group I--Chewable Toothbrushes and Group II--Manual Toothbrushes. Following oral prophylaxis, baseline records of oral hygiene indices (Simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S) in indexed teeth and Turesky modification of Quigley Hein plaque index (TMQHI) were taken. Baseline Saliva samples were collected and sent for Streptococcus mutans counts. Children were then instructed to use their respective toothbrush twice daily for a week. Oral hygiene indices and S. mutans counts were repeated after 1 week.
Results: Differences in pre-brushing and post-brushing plaque scores and salivary S. mutans counts were statistically significant when compared using paired-sample t test and independent-sample t test. There was a significant reduction in salivary S. mutans counts after using both chewable and manual toothbrushes. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.08).
Conclusion: Chewable toothbrushes are equally effective in plaque control when compared to manual toothbrushes. These can be a reliable alternative for children who lack manual dexterity.
METHOD: Forty-six Malay adults (aged 23-74 years) with tinnitus were enrolled. They were instructed to fill in the BEST questionnaire accordingly. After one week, 21 of them were asked to fill in the questionnaire again. The other 25 subjects underwent tinnitus intervention for three months and following this; the BEST was administered to them again.
RESULTS: In the test-retest reliability task, the intraclass correlation values obtained were acceptably high (0.70-0.90). After the intervention, significant differences in the BEST result were found in the mind domain, main domain and composite score (p<0.05) with moderate effect sizes (0.61- 0.70).
CONCLUSION: The test-retest reliability of the BEST was found to be good. It also showed good responsiveness to intervention. The clinical usefulness of the BEST in assessing patients with tinnitus was further supported by the present study.
METHODS: Thirty patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), age: 29.5 (SD = 5.6) years and 30 healthy gender-, age-, and education-matched control group participants, age: 28.8 (SD = 6.0) years, were recruited for this study. The participants in the healthy group were then randomly assigned into an EI (n = 15) group and a no-EI (n = 15) group. Similarly, the participants in the control group were then randomly assigned into EI (n = 15) and no-EI (n = 15) groups. The participants performed a serial reaction time (SRT) task and reaction times. A retention test was performed after 48 hours.
RESULTS: All participants reduced their reaction times across acquisition (MS group: 46.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001, and healthy group: 39.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001). The findings for the within-participants effect of repeated measures of time were significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 71.33. P < 0.001). These results indicate that the interaction between group and time was significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 6.44. P < 0.001), which indicated that the reaction time in both groups was significantly changed between the MS and healthy groups across times (B1 to B10). The main effect of the group (MS and healthy) (F(1, 56) = 22.78. P < 0.001) and also the main effect of no-EI vs EI (F(1, 56) = 4.71. P < 0.001) were significant.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that that RRMS patients are capable of learning new skills, but the provision of EI prior to physical practice is deleterious to implicit learning. It is sufficient to educate MS patients on the aim and general content of the training and only to provide feedback at the end of the rehabilitative session.