The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 5A’s smoking cessation intervention (5A’s) to that of brief advice (BA) conducted by dentists. A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was designed to compare the effectiveness of the interventions. Six Dental Public Health specialists were recruited, randomized and trained to participate in this trial. Two hundred and fifty patients were required on both arms. The main outcome measures were biochemically validated self-reported abstinence and behaviour change at 6-months follow-up. The odd of quitters in 5A’s intervention was 3.81 (95% CI: 1.87-7.76; p= 0.00) times higher compared to BA. After controlling other factors, the odds ratio for the 5A’s was 1.90 (95% CI: 0.652-5.547; p=0.24) higher compared to BA. The 5A’s was found to be more effective in initiating positive behaviour change compared to BA. However, after controlling other factors, there was no difference in the effectiveness although the odds ratio was slightly higher in 5A’s.
The objectives of this study were to assess the practice of molar root canal treatment (RCT) among general dental practitioners (GDPs), confidence level of GDPs in performing molar RCT and to identify factors that influence their confidence in managing molar RCI. One hundred questionnaires were distributed to GDPs in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Fifty questionnaires were delivered by mail and the remaining fifty were hand-delivered. All data was coded and verified. Fiftysix OOPs rcsponded to the questionnaires. Only fortyfive questionnaires were accepted (n=45) as eleven OOPs had never performed molar RCI. Most of the OOPs followed the standard quality guidelines while performing molar RCT except for vitality testing (36.4%) and rubber dam usage (27.3%). In this study, 100% of the GDPs were confident in making diagnosis of perinidicular diseases and 95.4% were confident in performing molar RCT from history taking until obturation. Patients' tolerance and availability of instruments and materials (97.7%) were two factors that most influence the GDPs' confidence level. The. least influcncing factor was undergraduate training (78.1 %). Attending seminars and lectures on endodontic, large number of molar teeth treated for ReT, patLents' affordability to pay for RCT and postgraduate training also influencc GDPs' confidence to a certain degree. From this study, it can be concluded that majority of OOPs complied standard quality guidelines except for vitality testing and rubber dam usage. Most of them were confident in performing molar RCT and were greatly influenced by the availability or"instruments and materials in their clinic and patients' tolerance in receiving molar RCI.
To evaluate patient’s subjective preferences to scaling with narrow probe-shaped EMS Perio Slim PS tips
compared to conventional tip based on pain perception using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Ten patients
were treated using a piezoelectric ultrasonic device (EMS) and two different scaler tips representing a
conventional scaler tip and a Perio Slim PS scaler tip in a split-mouth design. Pain was evaluated after 2
minutes scaling using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Data obtained was analysed by SPSS version 19.0 using
Wilcoxon test. Pain assessment after treatment confirmed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) showed that
the Perio Slim PS scaler tip (maximum pain score: 4, minimum: 2) caused less pain than the conventional
scaler tip (maximum: 8, minimum: 3) (p-value = 0.007). Using Perio Slim PS scaler tip caused less pain and
discomfort during scaling treatment when compared with conventional scaler tip.
Introduction: Clinical resolution of periodontitis (CRP) of type-2 diabetic patients with chronic periodontitis (T2DM-PD) after receiving non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) has been reported in the previous studies. This study aimed to evaluate CRP of T2DM-PD under medicaldental coordinated care (M-DCC). Materials and Methods: A 6-months follow-up quasi-experimental study was conducted among 20 subjects who received M-DCC in 2016. M-DCC included standard diabetic care provided by medical professional from 3 health clinics and NSPT provided by periodontal specialists from two periodontal specialist clinics. Target glycemic control achievement (TGCA) HbA1c 6.5% was assessed at baseline and 6 months after NSPT. Clinical resolution of PD was measured in terms of BPE, BOP %, CAL(mm), PPD(mm), PPD 4mm, PPD =4 mm and PPD 6mm at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Paired simple t test and ANOVA F test were applied to infer clinical resolution of periodontitis and its relation to TGCA.
Results: Mean (SD) of average BPE at baseline, 3- and 6-months were 3.52(0.34), 3.12(0.33) and 3(0.45) with (p<0.05); average PPD(mm) were 3.33(0.5), 3.23(0.75) and 2.73(0.57) with (p<0.05); PPD(%) 4mm were 71.03(12.33), 82.77(9.9) and 85.85 (8.9) with (p<0.05); PPD(%) =4 mm were 27.94(11.9), 16.97(10.01) and 13.71(9.1) with (p<0.05); PPD(%) 6mm were 8.04(4.32), 2.66(2.3) and 1.87(2.32) with (p<0.05). Significant resolution of BPE, CAL(mm) and PPD(mm) was noticed among two subjects who has changed from uncontrolled TGCA to controlled TGCA.
Conclusion(s): CRP and TGCA results have verified the effectiveness of M-DCC. A further clinical control trial with adequate sample size needs to confirm the results of the present study.
KEYWORDS: clinical resolution, chronic periodontitis, periodontal therapy, target HbA1C%, Type-2 Diabetic Patients with chronic periodontitis