METHOD: A cross-sectional qualitative study in which focus group interviews were conducted by 5 trained senior Cambodian dental students. A convenience sample of 56 older adults and caregivers was recruited across urban, semi-urban and rural locations. Focus group conversations were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS: The themes that emerged were around low expectations for both general health and oral health. A communal responsibility for health was expressed, and both money and transport were identified as key barriers to accessing care. Participants recognised that they had oral health problems, and acknowledged the impact of poor oral function on health and nutrition.

RESULTS: It was seen from the results of the study that the first-choice antibiotics for 67.8% of dentists were found to be the β-lactam group while sulfonamides and tetracyclines at 20% were the second most prescribed group. Another important finding was that 45.6% of dentists ignored hypersensitivity testing before prescription of antibiotics even though 83.3% of the total dentists interviewed were aware of the increase in antibiotic resistance.

Aim: To analyse various pain scales commonly used to determine the effect of different pain control methods during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Study Design. A comparative cross-sectional study performed on a sample of 60 patients (n = 60) including 14 males and 46 females who were ready for debonding and who were divided into three groups, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR).

Materials and Methods: A 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the pain intensity for each tooth. Another scale known as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to evaluate the patient's general attitude towards pain perception. The armamentarium and operator were kept same for all the patients. Statistical analysis used was the Kruskal-Wallis test, used for intergroup and intragroup comparison of pain scores.

Results: Lowest total pain score was recorded in the FP group (P=0.043) on intergroup comparison, while on intragroup comparison, higher pain scores were recorded in lower anterior region (P=0.02) in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the pain scores reported by the male and female subjects.

METHODS: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed at Najran University and provided to the participants for data collection. The data collected included information on risk perception and incorporation of measures for protection against COVID-19 to gauge the attitude of dentists during this period. Also, clinical implementation of various protective measures was reviewed.

RESULTS: Of the n = 322 dentists that answered the questions, 50% were general dentists and 28.9% were dentists working at specialist clinics, while the remaining 21.1% of dentists were employed in academic institutions. Among the newer additions to the clinic, 36.3% of dentists answered that they had added atomizers to their practices, followed by 26.4% of dentists that had incorporated the use of UV lamps for sterilization. We found that 18.9% dentists were using HEPA filters in their clinics, while 9.9% of dentists were making use of fumigation devices to control the risk of infection. One-way ANOVA was also carried out to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.049) between groups of dentists utilizing HEPA filters, UV lamps, atomizers, and fumigation devices to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 across their workplaces.