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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was conducted in Nov 2021 of all the dental schools in ten English-language speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) to identify departments/divisions in the disciplines of periodontology, cariology, and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry. The results were then compared against the findings of a similar investigation that was conducted from July to October 2008.
RESULTS: Of the 126 dental schools identified in 2021, information was available for 93 dental schools. Of these 93 schools, only 10 listed departments/divisions/disciplines of cariology, whereas 83 and 86 schools had listed periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. Despite a doubling of the number of dental schools with a department/division/discipline of cariology from 2008 to 2021, the absolute gap in the number of departments/divisions/disciplines in the other two disciplines compared to cariology had widened during the thirteen years. In 2008, there were 70 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology compared to cariology departments/divisions/disciplines. In 2021, there were 73 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology. Additional information on research output was available for 90 dental schools in 2021, where 30 schools self-identified as undertaking cariology research, whereas 68 and 47 schools undertook research in periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental education does not give equal emphasis to periodontology and cariology, and the discipline of cariology is grossly neglected.
METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P