Displaying publications 41 - 60 of 68 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Saber SEDM, Ahmed MHM, Obeid M, Ahmed HMA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Mar;52(3):267-278.
    PMID: 30225932 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13016
    AIM: To investigate the number of roots and root canal configurations using two coding systems and the root canal diverging and merging levels in extracted maxillary premolars in an Egyptian subpopulation using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

    METHODOLOGY: A total of 700 maxillary premolars were examined using CBCT in an Egyptian subpopulation. The number of roots was identified, and root canal configurations were classified according to Vertucci's classification and a new system for classifying root and canal morphology. In addition, the position where roots bifurcated and the levels where canals merged or diverged were identified. Fisher's exact test and independent t-test were used for statistical analysis, and the level of significance was set at 0.05 (P = 0.05).

    RESULTS: More than half of maxillary first premolars were double-rooted, and the majority of maxillary second premolars were single-rooted (P 

  2. Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Sultan OS, Jayaraman J, Soh JA, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2019 Feb;52(2):181-192.
    PMID: 30099740 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12995
    The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) up to May 2018. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessed the risk of bias (ROB). Any teaching method using TEL was considered as the intervention, and this was compared to traditional methods. The outcome measuring the effectiveness of learning activities was evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation model. The four levels of training outcomes are as follows: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) by the random effects model. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Only three studies were assessed as 'low' ROB. A meta-analysis could not be performed in the domains of Reaction and Behaviour. No significant difference was observed in knowledge gain (Learning domain) between TEL and traditional methods (SMD, 0.14 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.39) I2  = 62.7%). Similarly, no difference was observed in performance (Behaviour domain). A variable response was found in attitude (Reaction domain). From the available evidence, it can be concluded that TEL is equally as effective as traditional learning methods.
  3. Nagendrababu V, Segura-Egea JJ, Fouad AF, Pulikkotil SJ, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):455-466.
    PMID: 31721243 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13253
    BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic disorder amongst dental patients. The association between the diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment is unclear.

    AIM: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between diabetes and the outcome of root canal treatment.

    DATA SOURCE: The protocol of the review was developed and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019141684). Four electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCHOhost, Cochrane and Scopus databases) were used to perform a literature search until July 2019.

    STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses published in English assessing any outcomes of root canal treatment comparing diabetic and nondiabetic patients were included. Two reviewers were involved independently in study selection, data extraction and appraising the reviews that were included. Disagreements were resolved with the help of a third reviewer.

    STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 11 items. Each AMSTAR item was given a score of 1 if the criterion was met, or 0 if the criterion was not met or the information was unclear.

    RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included. The AMSTAR score for the reviews ranged from 5 to 7, out of a maximum score of 11, and all the systematic reviews were classified as 'medium' quality.

    LIMITATIONS: Only two systematic reviews included a meta-analysis. Only systematic reviews published in English were included.

    CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Diabetes mellitus is associated with the outcome of root canal treatment and can be considered as a preoperative prognostic factor.

  4. Karobari MI, Noorani TY, Halim MS, Dummer PMH, Ahmed HMA
    Int Endod J, 2019 Jun;52(6):917-919.
    PMID: 31074504 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13106
  5. Ahmed HMA, Che Ab Aziz ZA, Azami NH, Farook MS, Khan AA, Mohd Noor NS, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):871-879.
    PMID: 32003029 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13271
    AIM: To evaluate and compare the feedback of final year undergraduate dental students in eight Malaysian dental schools on the application of a new system for classifying root canal morphology in teaching and clinical practice.

    METHODS: One PowerPoint presentation describing two classification systems for root canal morphology (Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology, 1974 38, 456 and its supplemental configurations, International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761) was delivered to final year undergraduate dental students in eight dental schools in Malaysia by two presenters (each presented to four schools). To examine students' feedback on the utility of each system, printed questionnaires consisting of six questions (five multiple choice questions and one open-ended question) were distributed and collected after the lecture. The questionnaire was designed to compare the classification systems in terms of accuracy, practicability, understanding of root canal morphology and recommendation for use in pre-clinical and clinical courses. The exact test was used for statistical analysis, with the level of significance set at 0.05 (P = 0.05).

    RESULTS: A total of 382 (out of 447) students participated giving a response rate of 86%. More than 90% of students reported that the new system was more accurate and more practical compared with the Vertucci system (P  0.05). The students' responses for all questions were almost similar for both presenters (P > 0.05).

    CONCLUSIONS: The new system of International Endodontic Journal 2017, 50, 761 for classifying root and canal morphology was favoured by final year undergraduate dental students in Malaysia. The new system has the potential to be included in the undergraduate endodontic curriculum for teaching courses related to root and canal morphology.

  6. Nagendrababu V, Chong BS, McCabe P, Shah PK, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 May;53(5):619-626.
    PMID: 32090342 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13285
    Case reports can provide early information about new, unusual or rare disease(s), newer treatment strategies, improved therapeutic benefits and adverse effects of interventions or medications. This paper describes the process that led to the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines through a consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was formed with eight members (PD, VN, BC, PM, PS, EP, JJ and SP), including the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee developed an initial checklist by combining and modifying the items from the Case Report (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRICE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRICE Face-to-Face Meeting Group (PFMG) were then formed. The members of the PDG were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the wording and utility of the checklist items and the accompanying flow chart that was created to complement the PRICE 2020 guidelines. The revised PRICE checklist and flow chart developed by the online Delphi process was discussed by the PFMG at a meeting held during the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial Congress in Vienna, Austria, in September 2019. Following the meeting, the steering committee created a final version of the guidelines, which were piloted by several authors during the writing of a case report. In order to help improve the clarity, completeness and quality of case reports in Endodontics, we encourage authors to use the PRICE 2020 guidelines.
  7. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1090-1095.
    PMID: 30908638 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13123
    Laboratory-based research studies are the most common form of research endeavour and make up the majority of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in the field of Endodontology. The scientific information derived from laboratory studies can be used to design a wide range of subsequent studies and clinical trials and may have translational potential to benefit clinical practice. Unfortunately, the majority of laboratory-based articles submitted for publication fail the peer-review step, because unacceptable flaws or substantial limitations are identified. Even when apparently well-conducted laboratory-based articles are peer-reviewed, they can often require substantial corrections prior to the publication. It is apparent that some authors and reviewers may lack the training and experience to have developed a systematic approach to evaluate the quality of laboratory studies. Occasionally, even accepted manuscripts contain limitations that may compromise interpretation of data. To help authors avoid manuscript rejection and correction pitfalls, and to aid editors/reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically, the purpose of this project is to establish and publish quality guidelines for authors to report laboratory studies in the field of Endodontology so that the highest standards are achieved. The new guidelines will be named-'Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology' (PRILE). A steering committee was assembled by the project leads to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The committee will identify new items as well as review and adapt items from existing guidelines. The items forming the draft guidelines will be reviewed and refined by a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG). The items will be evaluated by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PRILE face-to-face consensus meeting group (PFCMG) formed by 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. This will be subject to final approval by the steering committee. The approved PRILE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, presented at congresses/meetings, and be freely available on a dedicated website. Feedback and comments will be solicited from researchers, editors and peer reviewers, who are invited to contact the steering committee with comments to help them update the guidelines periodically.
  8. Decurcio DA, Lim E, Chaves GS, Nagendrababu V, Estrela C, Rossi-Fedele G
    Int Endod J, 2019 Aug;52(8):1153-1161.
    PMID: 30883828 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13116
    AIM: To compare the educational outcomes using artificial teeth versus extracted teeth for pre-clinical endodontic training.

    DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Trip Database, Web of Science and Open Grey databases were conducted from their inception until November 2018 with no language restriction. Hand searching of most likely relevant journals was performed. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines.

    STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies that compared pre-clinical endodontic training using extracted teeth and artificial teeth were included.

    STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of included studies was appraised by Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. The findings were tabulated and summarized according to their outcomes with distinct narrative syntheses.

    RESULTS: Five studies were included. The component studies included 359 operators in total, mainly consisting of undergraduate students (97%, n = 349) and 10 endodontists (3%). Forty-seven per cent (n = 170) operated on artificial teeth only, whilst 19% (n = 67) worked primarily on extracted teeth, with the final treatment outcome being evaluated by independent observers using objective criteria. Operators in two studies (34%, n = 122) used both artificial teeth and ET and compared their experiences in surveys. Regarding technical outcomes, no significant differences between training with artificial teeth and extracted teeth were found, but the performance tended to be better in artificial teeth than extracted teeth. Operators trained solely on artificial teeth appeared to be adequately educated for subsequent root canal treatment (RCT) in the clinical setting.

    LIMITATIONS: Due to the scarcity of research on the topic overall, and the methodological variation between the studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis (meta-analysis).

    CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Based on the available evidence, the use of artificial teeth for pre-clinical endodontic training achieved similar educational outcomes compared to extracted teeth. However, the experiences reported by the operators diverged. Further studies assessing other artificial teeth available in the market testing other RCT procedures are necessary.

  9. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):764-773.
    PMID: 32196696 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13294
    In evidence-based health care, randomized clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable information on the effectiveness of an intervention. This project aimed to develop reporting guidelines, exclusively for randomized clinical trials in the dental specialty of Endodontology, using a well-documented, validated consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020. A total of eight individuals (PD, VN, HD, LB, TK, JJ, EP and SP), including the project leaders (PD and VN) formed a steering committee. The committee developed a checklist based on the items in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIRATE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIRATE Face-to-Face Meeting group (PFMG) were also formed. Thirty PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that make up the PRIRATE guidelines. The guidelines were discussed at a meeting of the PFMG at the 19th European Society of Endodontology (ESE) Biennial congress, held on 13 September 2019 in Vienna, Austria. A total of 21 individuals from across the globe and four steering committee members (PD, VN, HD and LB) attended the meeting. As a consequence of the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript. The PRIRATE 2020 guidelines contain a checklist consisting of 11 sections and 58 individual items as well as a flowchart, considered essential for authors to include when writing manuscripts for randomized clinical trials in Endodontics.
  10. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2020 Apr;53(4):437-439.
    PMID: 32170984 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13272
  11. Nagendrababu V, Chong BS, McCabe P, Shah PK, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jul;53(7):922-947.
    PMID: 32221975 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13300
    Case reports play a key role in showcasing new, unusual or rare disease(s), and the impact of newer therapeutic approaches or interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines are being introduced exclusively for Endodontics by adapting and integrating the CAse REport (CARE) guidelines and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles. The PRICE 2020 guidelines have been developed to help authors improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of case reports in Endodontics and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive explanation for each item in the PRICE 2020 checklist along with examples from the literature that demonstrate compliance with these guidelines. This information will highlight the importance of each item and provide practical examples to help authors understand the necessity of providing comprehensive information when preparing case reports. A link to this PRICE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org.
  12. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Priya E, Jayaraman J, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):774-803.
    PMID: 32266988 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13304
    Well-designed and properly conducted randomized clinical trials provide a true estimate of the effects of interventions and are acknowledged as the gold standard in terms of clinical study design. However, the quality of randomized clinical trials published in the field of Endodontics is suboptimal. The Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 guidelines were developed exclusively for Endodontics by integrating and adapting the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, through an accepted and well-documented consensus process. Full implementation of the PRIRATE 2020 guidelines will minimize potential sources of bias and thus enhance the standard of manuscripts submitted for publication, which will ultimately improve the reporting of randomized clinical trials in Endodontics. The aim of this document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIRATE 2020 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature in order to help authors understand their rationale and significance. A link to this PRIRATE 2020 explanation and elaboration document is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website at http://www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prirate/.
  13. Nagendrababu V, Duncan HF, Fouad AF, Kirkevang LL, Parashos P, Pigg M, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2020 Sep;53(9):1199-1203.
    PMID: 32365401 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13318
    Observational studies have a significant role in establishing the prevalence and incidence of diseases in populations, as well as determining the benefits and risks associated with health-related interventions. Observational studies principally encompass cohort, case-control, case series and cross-sectional designs. Inadequate reporting of observational studies is likely to have a negative impact on decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice; however, no reporting guidelines have been published for observational studies in Endodontics. The aim of this project is to develop reporting guidelines for authors when creating manuscripts describing observational studies in the field of Endodontology in an attempt to improve the quality of publications. The new guidelines for observational studies will be named: 'Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics (PROBE)'. A steering committee was formed by the project leaders (PD, VN) to develop the guidelines through a five-phase consensus process. The steering committee will review and adapt items from the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as identify new items that add value to Endodontics. The steering committee will create a PROBE Delphi Group (PDG), consisting of 30 members across the globe to review and refine the draft checklist items and flowchart. The items will be assessed by the PDG on a nine-point Likert scale for relevance and inclusion. The agreed items will then be discussed by a PROBE Face-to-Face meeting group (PFMG) made up of 20 individuals to further refine the guidelines. After receiving feedback from the PFMG, the steering committee will pilot and finalize the guidelines. The approved PROBE guidelines will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals, and be presented at national and international conferences. The PROBE checklist and flowchart will be available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontics (PRIDE) website: www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org. The PROBE steering committee encourages clinicians, researchers, editors and peer reviewers to provide feedback on the PROBE guidelines to inform the steering group when the guidelines are updated.
  14. Duncan HF, Nagendrababu V, Bjørndal L, Kvist T, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2020 Jun;53(6):731-732.
    PMID: 32396666 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13297
  15. Nagendrababu V, Abbott PV, Boutsioukis C, Duncan HF, Faggion CM, Kishen A, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2022 Jan 18.
    PMID: 35043398 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13682
    High-quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well-structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non-repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory-based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three-stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine-point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face-to-face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face-to-face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end-users.
  16. Nagendrababu V, Faggion CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2022 Jan 26.
    PMID: 35080025 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13693
    AIM: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

    METHODOLOGY: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

    RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

    CONCLUSION: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

  17. Ahmed HMA
    Int Endod J, 2022 Feb 06.
    PMID: 35124829 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13702
    The technical execution of root canal treatment procedures demands a thorough understanding and knowledge of root and canal anatomy. Over the decades, and with the aid of various research methods such as staining and clearing, 2D radiographic imaging, sectioning procedures, cone beam computed tomography and micro-computed tomography, many laboratory and clinical studies have been undertaken to understand the root and canal anatomy of the human dentition. This has resulted in a tremendous increase in the body of knowledge with a wide range of qualitative and quantitative presentations of the root and canal anatomy. This review aims to provide a critical analysis for the laboratory and clinical research methods in root and canal anatomy studies. In addition, it aims to identify existing gaps and present insights for directions of future research and ways for translation to clinical endodontics.
  18. Ahmed HMA, Dummer PMH
    Int Endod J, 2018 Apr;51(4):389-404.
    PMID: 29023779 DOI: 10.1111/iej.12867
    Understanding the normal anatomical features as well as the more unusual developmental anomalies of teeth, roots and root canals is essential for successful root canal treatment. In addition to various types of root canal configuration and accessory canal morphology, a wide range of developmental tooth, root and canal anomalies exists, including C-shaped canals, dens invaginatus, taurodontism, root fusion, dilacerations and palato-gingival grooves. There is a direct association between developmental anomalies and pulp and periradicular diseases that usually require a multidisciplinary treatment approach to achieve a successful outcome. A number of classifications have categorized tooth, root and canal anomalies; however, several important details are often missed making the classifications less than ideal and potentially confusing. Recently, a new coding system for classifying root, root canal and accessory canal morphology has been introduced. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new system for classifying tooth, root and canal anomalies for use in research, clinical practice and training, which can serve as complementary codes to the recently described system for classifying root, as well as main and accessory canal morphology.
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links