METHODS: The self-administered online survey utilized in this cross-sectional study was derived from the Global Health Professions Students Survey (GHPSS), which involved medical, dental, and pharmacy students. A total of 328 participants completed a questionnaire from June to August 2022, with a response rate of 91.1%.
RESULTS: The overall smoking prevalence was 4.6% among the medical, dental, and pharmacy students who participated in this study; 46.7% of current smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke at home compared to 17.6% of non-smokers (p=0.011); and 66.7% of smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke in public compared to 40.3% of non-smokers (p=0.043). In all, 99.1% of respondents supported the smoking ban and 46.7% of current smokers supported the smoking ban in discos/bars/pubs, compared to 82.0% of non-smokers (p=0.002). Of the participants, 96.6% received lessons on the danger of tobacco, and 65.5% received smoking cessation training. Among factors associated with current smoking was gender; male students had a 19-fold higher likelihood of smoking than female students (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=19.25; 95% CI: 4.25-87.19, p<0.001). In addition, home exposure to secondhand smoke was four times more common for current smokers (OR=4.11; 95% CI: 1.43-11.79, p=0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: Although smoking prevalence was low among the students in this study, there was a higher percentage of them exposed to secondhand smoke at home and in public.
METHODS: In 24 participants, 140-200 g of force was applied for mandibular canine retraction. Three MOPs were made according to the scheduled intervals of the 3 different groups: group 1 (MOP 4 weeks), group 2 (MOP 8 weeks), and group 3 (MOP 12 weeks) directly at the mandibular buccal cortical bone of extracted first premolars sites. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained at the 12th week after MOP application. Computed tomography Analyzer software (version 1.11.0.0; Skyscan, Kontich, Belgium) was used to compute the trabecular alveolar BV/TV ratio.
RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in the rate of canine movement between control and MOP. Paired t test analysis showed a significant difference (P = 0.001) in the mean BV/TV ratio between control and MOP sides in all the frequency intervals groups. However, the difference was significant only in group 1 (P = 0.014). A strong negative correlation (r = -0.86) was observed between the rate of canine tooth movement and the BV/TV ratio at the MOP side for group 1 and all frequency intervals together (r = -0.42).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of orthodontic tooth movement can be accelerated by the MOP technique with frequently repeated MOPs throughout the treatment.