Objectives: The present study aim was to compare oral health status among the undergraduate dental students of the preclinical and clinical years. Study Design: Cross-sectional comparative survey. Setting: Preclinical and clinical Dental students of all dental colleges of district Peshawar. Period: 15 December 2016 to 14 May 2017. Material & Methods: Clinical examination was conducted among the undergraduate students in all the dental colleges of district Peshawar. The sample was drawn from both the preclinical first year and the clinical final years. Examination was done to evaluate decayed tooth component of DMFT. The questionnaire included demographic details and questions on the students’ oral health practices. A clinical oral examination was done to evaluate decayed tooth component of DMFT. Data Analysis and Results: Chi-square analysis was performed for group comparisons of data. Statistically there is a trend of significance (0.074). In the pre-clinical group almost 66.3% of students had bad oral health status while in the clinical group comparatively a low percent of students (33.7%) had poor oral health status. Conclusion: Oral health status and oral hygiene practices of dental students had improved as they advances towards clinical years.

Objectives: The study aimed to collect the data regarding prosthetic status and need. Study Design: Cross sectional study. Setting: Three Teaching Dental Hospitals of Peshawar. Period: October to December 2017. Materials and Methods: Participants was given a pre-structured questionnaire which was designed to collect information regarding prosthetic need and prosthetic status. It consisted of two parts—the first part recorded data on socio-demographic factors (age, gender, educational level, socioeconomic status), while the second recorded the prosthetic status and need. Results: A total of 600 subjects were included comprising of 310 (51.6%) males and 290 (48.3%) females. The age ranged from 15 to 88 years with mean age 35 years. A total of 199 (33.1%) respondents were uneducated and 400 were educated. Out of 400, 63 (10.5%) had primary education, 167 (27.8%) had secondary education, 91 (15.1%) were graduates and 79 (13.1%) had a post-graduation There was significance difference found between age, education, socioeconomic status and prosthetic status. (p=0.000, 0.000, 0.004). There was no significance difference in prosthetic status between genders. There was significance difference found between education, socioeconomic status and prosthetic need (P value is 0.000, 0.012). There was no statistical significance found with respect to gender and prosthetic need. Conclusion: Hence, it can be concluded that most of the prosthetic needs of the studied population were unmet with prosthetic needs being approximately two fold greater than the prosthetic status.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and Non-Diabetics in terms of Periodontal Disease Index (PDI). METHODOLOGY: This comparative cross-sectional study recruited 105 subjects, 56 participants of Type 2 diabetes mellitus with periodontal disease and 49 non-diabetics (comparison group) having periodontal disease. Non-probability purposive sampling method was used for selecting the participants. This study was conducted at Peshawar Dental hospital, Prime Teaching hospital, and Sardar Begum Dental hospital. Determination of   HbA1c to diagnose diabetes and periodontal examination was conducted for both the groups to compare Type 2 diabetics and non-diabetics in terms of Periodontal Disease Index (PDI) score that is one of the clinical parameters of periodontal disease. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS version 23. RESULTS: Out of 105 total participants, 33 (31.4 %) were males and 72 (68.6%) were females. The mean age of subjects was 51.48±7.92. The mean PDI scores of the two groups were compared. Mean Periodontal Disease Index (PDI) was recorded, score was 2.58 (±0.67) in diabetics and 1.11 (±0.41) in non-diabetic (comparison group). P-value was measured by Chi-square test and was found to be significant. CONCLUSION: We concluded that significant difference exists between the mean PDI scores of Type 2 diabetics and non-diabetics.