Saheem Ahmad

Methylglyoxal (MG) is a precursor for advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), which have a significant role in diabetes. The present study is designed to probe the immunological response of native and glycated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in experimental animals. The second part of this study is to probe glycoxidative lesion detection in low-density lipoproteins (LDL) in diabetes subjects with varying disease duration. The neo-epitopes attributed to glycation-induced glycoxidative lesion of LDL in DM patients’ plasma were, analyzed by binding of native and MG-modified LDL immunized animal sera antibodies using an immunochemical assay. The plasma purified human LDL glycation with MG, which instigated modification in LDL. Further, the NewZealand-White rabbits were infused with unmodified natural LDL (N-LDL) and MG-glycatedLDL to probe its immunogenicity. The glycoxidative lesion detection in LDL of DM with disease duration (D.D.) of 5–15 years and D.D. > 15 years was found to be significantly higher as compared to normal healthy subjects (NHS) LDL. The findings support the notion that prolonged duration of diabetes can cause structural alteration in LDL protein molecules, rendering them highly immunogenic in nature. The presence of LDL lesions specific to MG-associated glycoxidation would further help in assessing the progression of diabetes mellitus.

The objective of this study is to discover any possible association of gender or practitioner classification with orthodontic knowledge and attitudes towards orthodontic treatment. Descriptive cross-sectional research was conducted on two groups of dentists in the Ha’il region of Saudi Arabia. Group I included general practitioners, while Group II had non-orthodontic specialists. The findings suggest a statistically significant (p < 0.05) difference between the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists. Independent two tailed t-scores for difference in Knowledge (t-score = 3.19919, p = 0.003) and Attitude (t-score = 2.16314, p = 0.048319), highlight significant disparities in the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of knowledge and attitudes based on gender differences. This study captures and highlights subtle information that is very significant in dealing with critically important orthodontics issues. The study suggests that it is possible that a non-orthodontic specialist may suggest an altogether different line of treatment with different consequences when compared to a general practitioner and vice versa. This may result in unwanted, permanent orthodontic effects, highlighting the significance of the early stage of orthodontic treatment awareness. This research reveals disparities between the perceptions of general practitioners and non-orthodontic specialists about the stage and relevance of orthodontic treatment. It is strongly advised to see an orthodontic expert rather than a general practitioner or non-orthodontic specialist for orthodontic issues.