Frequency Distribution of Gingival Biotype and Related Factors in an Adult Population of Isfahan

Background: Gingival biotype can be influenced by genetic factors, tooth-related factors and biological issues. This study aimed to determine the biotype of facial gingival and related factors. Methods: In this study, 300 patients (128 males and 172 females) with a mean age of 36.2 ± 13.27 were selected by simple random sampling. Patients’ characteristics including age, gender, smoking, dental and keratinized gingival anatomy and oral hygiene parameters were recorded and their associations with gingival biotype were investigated using Transparency method. Collected data were analyzed by SPSS24 using t test, Mann-Whitney, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation coefficient. The P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Frequency of thin gingival biotype was higher than that of thick gingival biotype. There was a significant relationship between gingival biotype of upper central incisors areas and age (P < 0.001), vibratory brushing (P=0.019) and keratinized gingival width (P=0.021). There was also a significant relationship between the gingival biotype of lower central incisor area and gender (P=0.036), vibratory brushing (P=0.010), vertical brushing (P=0.009) and keratinized gingival width (P=0.011). Moreover, a significant direct relationship was discovered between Gingival biotype of upper and lower central incisors areas. No relationship was found between frequency and duration of brushing, dental flossing, plaque index, tooth shape, and smoking with gingival biotype (P> 0.005). Conclusions: Gingival biotype was associated with age, gender and keratinized gingival width, as well as some brushing characteristics such as the brushing method.

Study of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016

India has been riddling since decades with the problem of insolvency and bankruptcy issues. Several public sector banks, financial institutions and operational creditors were facing severe credit default risk. Various laws and codes have been passed as a corrective measure, but have proved to be inefficient and failed to provide any kind of relief to the creditors. There was thus a need for reform in insolvency and bankruptcy laws. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy code 2016 (IBC) has been instrumental in creating a shift in the way the bankruptcy process of defaulting firms has been dealt with. The IBC 2016 promises to bring about transparency, method and infrastructure in the entire system of liquidation. Changing up core aspects of the insolvency process, it gives companies a well-deserved chance at revival. Despite the recent amendments to the code and regulation changes by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, there are still few grey areas in the code. This paper aims to thus test the effectiveness of the IBC 2016 since its introduction in 2016 and whether it resolves lags in the previous system. Hence, the paper dwells into the various components of IBC to critically analyse its sustainability and scalability. The research paper is purely based on secondary research through different news articles and reports from reliable sources. Though it is too early to comment on the impact of the IBC 2016, the researchers have tried to study the code and conclude whether it will be successful in fixing the problems and will keep up to its promise in the long run.

The transparency method and knowing our reasons

Subjects can know what their attitudes are and also their motivating reasons for those attitudes – for example, S can know that she believes that q and also that she believes that q for the reason that p. One attractive account of self-knowledge of attitudes appeals to the ‘transparency method’ (TM). According to TM, subjects answer the question of whether they believe that q by answering the world-directed question of whether q is true. Something similar also looks intuitive in the case of self-knowledge of motivating reasons, but cashing out such a view requires determining what the relevant world-directed question would be. This paper argues that subjects learn why they believe that q by answering the world-directed question ‘what are good reasons for believing that q?’ I argue for this against an alternative that I develop from Boyle 2011a.