RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The epidemiological data in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia indicate that there has been increased prevalence of dental caries and increased treatment needs, with negligible rates of restorative care among the population. The restorative treatments done among the population are very limited. There are no published reports that systematically document the barriers of restorative care among the residents of Jeddah. AIM: This present paper is a humble attempt toward the study of barriers of restorative care and systematic documentation of the dental patients in a private dental school in Jeddah. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The methodology adopted by the study is the preparation of a questionnaire after validation and analyzing the responses from the sample of the universe of dental patients in Jeddah. The questionnaire broadly included (1) fear of consulting a dentist, (2) dental anxiety/fear to receive dental care, (3)cost of dental treatment, (4) fee for restoration, (5) pain, and (6) experience of a dentist (fear that a student may treat them). The completed questionnaire of 22 questions was proofread by a group of general dentists to check for clarity and meaning of the statements. After the changes, the questionnaire was distributed to 275 patients. The analysis of the data in the study was done by the SPSS version 23. Chi-square was calculated for the analyses of all the independent variables. RESULTS: 41.4% of people have fear to visit a dentist. Hence, this is one of the barriers of restoration. Nearly 50% have responded that restorative treatment is painful. In addition, the experience of the dentist has an impact on the respondents getting treatments in the dental clinic. 76% of the respondents have a fear when a student who has lesser experience will be treating them in the dental clinic. CONCLUSION: Dentists have to distinguish between perceived barriers and the real barriers to choosing restorative treatments.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Efforts to prevent HIV transmission from mother to infants in settings like India may benefit from the availability of reliable methods for rapid and simple HIV screening. Data from India on the reliability of rapid HIV test kits are limited and there are no data on the use of rapid HIV tests for screening of pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant women attending an antenatal clinic and delivery room in Pune agreed to participate in an evaluation of five rapid HIV tests, including (a) a saliva brush test (Oraquick HIV-1/2, Orasure Technologies Inc.), (b) a rapid plasma test (Oraquick HIV-1/2) and (c) three rapid finger prick tests (Oraquick HIV-1/2; HIV-1/2 Determine, Abbott; NEVA HIV-1/2 Cadila). Results of the rapid tests were compared with three commercial plasma enzyme immunoassay (EIA) tests (Innotest HIV AB EIA, Lab systems/ELISCAN HIV AB EIA, UBI HIV Ab EIA). RESULTS: Between September 2000 and October 1, 2001, 1258 pregnant women were screened for HIV using these rapid tests. Forty-four (3.49%) of the specimens were HIV-antibody-positive by at least two plasma EIA tests. All of the rapid HIV tests demonstrated excellent specificity (96-100%). The sensitivity of the rapid tests ranged from 75-94%. The combined sensitivity and specificity of a two-step algorithm for rapid HIV testing was excellent for a number of combinations of the five rapid finger stick tests. CONCLUSION: In this relatively low HIV prevalence population of pregnant women in India, the sensitivity of the rapid HIV tests varied, when compared to a dual EIA algorithm. In general, the specificity of all the rapid tests was excellent, with very few false positive HIV tests. Based upon these data, two different rapid HIV tests for screening pregnant women in India would be highly sensitive, with excellent specificity to reliably prevent inappropriate use of antiretroviral therapy for prevention of vertical HIV transmission.