Information technology has stimulated efforts to reform teaching methods in dental education. Most of these efforts involve a shift from conventional mode to the more technology‐savvy and student‐centered approach. The aim of this study was to compare postgraduate dental students' academic performance using two teaching methodologies (video‐based learning and blended module‐based learning) in a biostatistics and research methodology course in a master's program at a dental college in India. This retrospective study involved two groups of students enrolled in the master's program with different years of admission: Group I in 2013‐14 (n=80) and Group II in 2015‐16 (n=80). Group I students learned the subjects with video‐based learning, whereas Group II students were taught using a blended module program using a small‐group learning system called Process‐Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). The students' final course evaluation (summative assessment) and formative assessment (during course assessments) were compared for the two groups. The students' final course evaluation was derived from an end‐of‐year written examination, whereas the formative assessment was recorded with written tests and projects during the course. In the results, the summative assessment did not show a significant difference between Group I (68.2±13.4) and Group II (66.4±11.9) (p=0.39). The formative assessment showed a significant difference (p<0.001) in favor of the Group II students. In this study, the blended module‐based teaching produced similar scores on the final exam to the video‐based lectures, but it produced significantly better results on the in‐course assessments. The latter finding could be attributed to the incorporation of small‐group learning and POGIL.

The present study was a novel attempt to estimate the levels of sulfiredoxin which was significantly elevated in the diseased sites of patients with chronic periodontitis. Future studies are required to probe the role of sulfiredoxin in the etiopathogenesis of periodontal disease.

Autologous platelet concentrates for treating periodontal infrabony defects.

The aim of the present review is to systematically evaluate the additive effect of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) in treatment of intrabony defects when used along with other regenerative procedures and when used alone in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. A search was performed in electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) in order to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the additive efficacy of APCs for healing and regeneration of hard and soft tissues in patients undergoing regenerative surgical procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects, having a follow-up of at least 9 months. Included studies underwent risk of bias assessment and data extraction. The main variables evaluated for efficacy were: pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), radiographic bone filling, and postoperative pain. The effect of APCs adjunct was evaluated for the following procedures: open flap debridement (OFD) alone, OFD plus grafting of the defect with autogenous bone or bone substitutes, and grafting in combination with a covering membrane for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has a significant additive effect when used along with OFD. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has a significant additive effect when used along with bone grafts. Conversely, PRP was found to be ineffective when used in combination with GTR procedures. No study evaluated the effect of APCs on postoperative pain. Platelet-rich plasma may be used advantageously as an adjunct to grafting materials, but not in combination with GTR, for treatment of intrabony defects. Moreover, PRF can be effective as a sole regenerative material, in combination with OFD. There is still a lack of evidence regarding the effect of PRF in combination with grafting materials and GTR, the effect of other types of APCs such as plasma rich in growth factors, and the effect of APCs on postoperative pain.

No abstract