BackgroundHalitosis or oral malodor is defined as an unpleasant breath odor. It can become a serious problem affecting individuals’ social communication and self-confidence. Furthermore, it is a discomforting issue for the people around the person affected, because they consider it embarrassing to inform the person of the problem.AimThis study was designed to measure self-perception, knowledge, and awareness of halitosis among female university students in Saudi Arabia.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was implemented with 392 volunteer participants who responded to a questionnaire on their self-perception, knowledge, and awareness of halitosis.ResultsThe response rate was 89.1% (392/440). Self-perception of halitosis was low (21.4%), whereas a larger percentage (78.1%) indicated noticing people with bad breath. Most participants (80.4%) thought that the gastrointestinal tract is the primary source of halitosis. Seventy-seven percent preferred using personal methods such as mouthwash and chewing gum to treat oral malodor. According to 82.1% of respondents, a dentist is the most appropriate professional to treat halitosis.ConclusionThe investigation revealed low self-perception and limited knowledge regarding halitosis. Therefore, the role of dentists in informing and educating their patients concerning oral malodor should be enhanced. Public education about the causes of and possible ways of managing bad breath should be increased.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Diabetes mellitus and hypertension are the leading chronic diseases in Saudi Arabia; 23.1% of the Saudi population are diabetic and 25.5% are hypertensive. This cross-sectional study was made on dental setting to determine the effectiveness of screening of diabetes and hypertension in dental clinics. Materials and methods This study was carried out in the primary care dental clinics at the Dental College in King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Before starting any treatment, a face-to-face interview was administered to collect a brief medical history and personal data followed by measurement of body mass index (BMI). After that, blood pressure level reading was obtained using electrical sphygmomanometer. Finally, a glucose level reading was obtained from capillary blood from the patient's third fingertip using glucose reader. Results Our study included 283 participants, 118 of whom were females (41.7%). Our study showed that a significant amount of the participants are at risk of having hypertension (44.8%). In addition, a significant number (10.2%) of the participants are at risk of having diabetes. Furthermore, 35.7% of the sample had obesity as a risk factor for diabetes and hypertension. Conclusion The dental team can play an important role in screening of diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic diseases. In Saudi Arabia, public awareness of the chronic diseases is still critically insufficient. Clinical significance Our study showed the importance of the screening even for patients with negative history of diabetes or hypertension. How to cite this article Hadlaq EM, Faraj ZT, Al Gamdi FM, Al Obathani FA, Abuabat MF, Awan KH. Early Screening of Diabetes and Hypertension in Primary Care Dental Clinics at King Saud University in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(8):652-659.

Objectives There are many treatment modalities for myofascial pain, and recent findings reported in the literature highlight the superiority of using local anesthetics as the treatment of choice. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of two of the most used local anesthetic agents—lidocaine and mepivacaine—in the management of myofascial pain. Materials and methods Thirty patients (20 females, 10 males) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 50% received lidocaine and 50% received mepivacaine. Trigger point injections in the orofacial region were administered 4 times, 10 days between each injection, with 4 weeks of follow-up after the end of the treatment course. Pain levels were recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the time of follow-up and 30 min after injection. Results All patients exhibited statistically significant improvement when comparing pre- and post-treatment mean values. Both local anesthetics (i.e., lidocaine and mepivacaine) were similarly effective for the management of myofascial pain (p = 0.875). The mepivacaine-treated group exhibited significantly lower post-injection tenderness than the lidocaine group (p = 0.038). There was no relationship between sex and treatment response. Female and male patients both reported similar responses in terms of VAS scores (p = 0.818). Conclusion No drug was superior in the long term; thus, the clinician’s choice can be based on drug availability and patient medical history.