The value of a specialized second-opinion pathological diagnosis for oral and maxillofacial lesions.

OBJECTIVES: An error in the diagnosis of an oral or maxillofacial lesion could potentially be detrimental to a patient's prognosis and management. Major discrepancies between the initial and subsequent diagnoses of head and neck pathologies range from 7 to 53%. This study determined the rate of discrepancies found in the diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial lesions after a second opinion in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was conducted by oral and maxillofacial pathology consultants to review all cases referred for a second opinion to the oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory between January 2015 and December 2020. If the second-opinion diagnosis matched the original diagnosis, this was described as "agreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis did not match the original diagnosis but would not change the management or prognosis of a patient, this was classified as a "minor disagreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis resulted in the changing of a patient's management or prognosis, this was categorized as a "major disagreement." Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare data between original and second-opinion diagnoses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 138 cases, 59 (43%) had an initial diagnosis and a second-opinion diagnosis that were in major disagreement. The most common tumor for which there was a major disagreement was squamous cell carcinoma. No single factor influenced the occurrence of major disagreements. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation reiterates the importance of obtaining a second opinion from a specialist in oral and maxillofacial pathology to improve the diagnostic accuracy for lesions. A formal system for this step, in addition to the obtaining of adequate clinical and radiographic information about a patient, is mandatory for the review of difficult cases.

Parental Knowledge and Awareness of Fluoride Varnish Application on Their Children - A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Fluoride varnishes are forms of topical fluoride that are applied on the surfaces of teeth to prevent from dental caries. It contains sodium fluoride, which is the active ingredient in the varnish and the concentration is about 22,600 ppm. Fluoride can promote enamel remineralization which protect against dental caries and it can be professionally applied by dentists and physicians for infants and young children. Methods: In this, cross-sectional study, a close-ended survey containing 14 items was given to 399 randomly assigned parents in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire included demographic data and items to assess the general knowledge about fluoride and fluoride varnish. The responses were coded and statistical analysis was performed. Results: About 65.3% of males and 47.4% females were not sure if fluoride application was safe for their children, however, 67.2% of the population revealed that tooth pastes were one among the fluoride sources for their children. Pearson's correlation test showed high statistical significance between the parents' educational background and awareness level of fluoride varnish was of with p-value-0.000 and correlation coefficient (r-value-0.427). Conclusion: The lack of awareness among parents on an important caries-control measure warrants the implementation of special awareness programs on fluorides and its benefits in young children.

Awareness of the Effect of Diabetes on Oral Health among a Population in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

PURPOSE: Diabetes is an ever-growing health issue in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has several oral health implications and oral health in turn affects diabetes control. The primary objective of this research was to study the awareness of the effect of diabetes on oral health among the general population in the city of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A closed-ended, validated questionnaire was distributed to 506 randomly selected shopping-mall-goers. Responses were coded and entered into spreadsheet (SPSS, IBM) and frequency distribution of the responses was calculated. RESULTS: The majority of the respondents were females (62.5%), non-diabetic (80.2%) and reported a positive family history of diabetes (87.9%). Most of them (63.4%) understood the importance of discussing one's diabetes status with the dentist as it affected the treatment plan, and also knew (84.4%) that diabetes affects oral health in some way. A majority also correctly responded to how diabetes affects oral health (66.3%) and to the sequelae of untreated gum disease (87.2%). The majority of the respondents had not received any tips or information regarding the connection between diabetes and oral health. CONCLUSION: This study reported adequate knowledge of the sample with respect to diabetes-related oral health. An important finding of this study was that the majority of the study participants did not receive information leading to diabetes-related oral health awareness or knowledge from anyone, which implies that health professionals and health media do not play the requisite role in dissemination of this important aspect of public health.