Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is emerging as a metabolic epidemic worldwide. Pathologically, dysregulation of many biological pathways precedes hyperglycemia and the clinical diagnosis of T2DM. Changing trajectories along the process of T2DM development necessitates frequent measurement of biomarkers for early identification of at-risk individuals and successful prevention. Increase in circulating inflammatory adipokines has been suggested as predictive of T2DM. Human saliva is an easily accessible biospecimen amenable for painless frequent collection and possesses nearly 50% of serum proteome. In this study, we measured the adipokines resistin, visfatin, TNF-α, and ghrelin as markers for T2DM in unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) using specific assay kits. Resistin and visfatin concentrations were significantly higher in T2DM saliva. Although the concentration of acylated or unacylated ghrelin was lower in diabetic saliva, the decrease was not significant. Since resistin and visfatin are biomarkers integral to T2DM pathology, their salivary assessments may receive clinical acceptance.

A traditional summative grading structure, used at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) for more than 30 years, was identified by faculty as outdated for assessing students' clinical performance. In an effort to change the status quo, a feedback-driven assessment was implemented in 2012 to provide a constructive assessment tool acceptable to both faculty and students. Building on the successful non-graded clinical evaluation employed at Baylor College of Dentistry, IUSD implemented a streamlined electronic formative feedback model (FFM) to assess students' daily clinical performance. An important addition to this evaluation tool was the inclusion of routine student self-assessment opportunities. The aim of this study was to determine faculty and student response to the new assessment instrument. Following training sessions, anonymous satisfaction surveys were examined for the three user groups: clinical faculty (60% response rate), third-year (D3) students (72% response rate), and fourth-year (D4) students (57% response rate). In the results, 70% of the responding faculty members preferred the FFM over the summative model; however, 61.8% of the D4 respondents preferred the summative model, reporting insufficient assessment time and low faculty participation. The two groups of students had different responses to the self-assessment component: 70.2% of the D4 respondents appreciated clinical self-assessment compared to 46% of the D3 respondents. Overall, while some components of the FFM assessment were well received, a phased approach to implementation may have facilitated a transition more acceptable to both faculty and students. Improvements are being made in an attempt to increase overall satisfaction.