Objectives: To report the extent, pattern, clinical presentation and phenotypes of enamel hypomineralization in permanent dentition Study Design: This cross sectional observational study recruited a random sample of 1726, 12–16 year olds. Enamel hypomineralization was scored on all teeth by a calibrated examiner using the EAPD 2003 criteria. Proportions of affected subjects (prevalence) with a minimum of one hypomineralization and Molar Incisor Hypomineralization (MIH) were calculated. Proportions of following phenotypes were quantified i.e. MH (only FPM hypomineralization), M+IH (concomitantly affected FPMs and permanent incisors without affecting any other tooth in the arch), MIHO (hypomineralization affecting at least one of the canines, premolars or 2nd molars and simultaneously including at least one FPM), IH (only permanent incisor's hypomineralization) and NoFPM (hypomineralization affecting at least one of the canines, premolars and 2nd molars but not FPM; incisors can be affected concomitantly). A comparative evaluation of extent and severity of enamel hypomineralization was performed amongst various phenotypes. Statistical measures employed t-test, chi square tests and ANOVA. Results: Overall prevalence of affected subjects was 13.21% (228/1726) and 9.79% (169/1726) for enamel hypomineralization and MIH respectively. A total of 4.36±3.45 teeth/subject and 6.01±5.20 surfaces/subject were found to be affected with enamel hypomineralization. Most prevalent phenotype was M+IH while the least prevalent was IH. Maximum severity i.e. number of affected surfaces and surfaces with PEB were reported for MIHO (p<0.001). Conclusion: Enamel hypomineralization can manifest in any tooth in five phenotypic variations in permanent dentition with varying extent and severity.

Objective: To find out the safe and efficient sedative agent for primary molar pulpectomy in uncooperative pediatric patients. Study Design: This double blind randomized trial enrolled 40 anxious and healthy 2-6 year olds. All subjects received IV propofol (1-1.5mg/kg) or ketofol (1-1.5 mg/kg propofol with 0.25mg/kg ketamine) as per group assignment after oral midazolam premedication (0.5 mg/kg). Sedation maintenance was done with propofol infusion at 25-75?g/kg/min titrated to a predefined Worse level as per Houpt's sedation rating scale. Additional bolus/es was/were administered in the dosage similar to induction dose in case of inadequate sedation. Primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. Secondary outcomes were vital signs, success of procedure, operator satisfaction, sedation quality, treatment time, recovery time and total propofol dose. Results: Significantly greater incidence of respiratory depression was reported for ketofol group (11/20; 55%) when compared to propofol group (3/20; 15%) (p = 0.008). Desaturation was the most common adverse respiratory event with significantly greater incidence in ketofol group (9/20; 45%) when compared to propofol only group (3/20; 15%) (p = 0.033). No significant differences regarding secondary outcomes were reported in two groups. Conclusion: Both the regimen exhibited similar sedation profile while propofol alone emerged as a safer option.