MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of eight domains with 43 questions was sent to all the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's (UKM) dental graduates of 2019 and 2020 cohorts. The domains were as follows: (A) gathering information at chairside, (B) diagnosis, (C) treatment planning, (D) treatment and prevention, (E) community-based, (F) management and administrative, (G) communication and (H) personal management and professional development. Three additional questions were included to assess satisfaction on clinical teaching and supervision, requirements and assessment and cross-infection control.
RESULTS: A total of 54 (91.5%) and 45 (100%) questionnaires were returned by the 2019 and 2020 cohorts, respectively. The 2019 cohort consistently perceived their competencies to be high across all the eight domains, and these responses were significantly higher than the 2020 cohort for seven out of the eight domains (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Buccal mucosa of the maxillary right central incisor teeth of 171 participants was evaluated using four methods, which were direct measurements using calliper, transgingival probing method using an endodontic probe, and probe visibility method using Colorvue biotype probe (CBP) and UNC-15 probe. The pigmentation of the gingiva was assessed using the Dummett-Gupta oral pigmentation lesion index.
RESULTS: The average gingival thickness of the selected population was 1.22 ± 0.38 mm with a distribution of 70% thick and 30% thin gingiva. Transgingival and calliper methods showed good agreement and significant correlation (r = 0.229; p = .003). Visual assessment using CBP and UNC-15 probe showed poor agreement with the direct measurement methods. Gingival pigmentation significantly affected the probe visibility assessment, reducing the visibility of both the CBP (odds ratio [OR] = 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-8.74) and UNC-15 probe (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.05-3.23) while controlling for thickness of the gingiva.
CONCLUSION: The probe visibility method using either CBP or the UNC-15 probe is affected by the degree of gingival pigmentation. Direct measurements using either a calliper or transgingival probing are recommended as methods to measure the gingival thickness in populations with gingival pigmentation.
METHODOLOGY: Digital photographs of 188 participants were taken using standardized parameters. The buccal gingival pigmentation was evaluated using three methods (a) a clinical evaluation by two independent assessors using the DOPI, (b) the CIELAB values using the Adobe Photoshop® software (Version 23.1.1) and (c) the CIV calculated using the ImageJ software (Version 1.53k). A hierarchical clustering analysis was used to identify colour groups that clustered together. Agreement between the clinical and digital categorization of the pigmentation was carried out using weighted kappa analysis. Agreements between CIELAB and CIV were compared using intra-class correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the DOPI, the L*, a*, and b* coordinates, and the CIV between the different ethnic groups of the participants. Cluster analysis for the CIELAB and CIV both identified four clusters. The gingival pigmentation categorization using the L*, a*, and b* values moderately agreed with the clinical evaluation using the DOPI index while the categorization with the CIV was in slight agreement with the clinical evaluations.
CONCLUSION: This study identified four clusters of gingival pigmentation in 188 multi-ethnic participants. The clusters, determined by CIELAB values, align with the clinical assessment of gingival pigmentation. Digital measurements derived from clinical photographs can serve as an effective means of pigmentation measurement in dental clinics.