Restorative dentistry and oral rehabilitation: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

Prevention of osteoradionecrosis in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiation therapy

BACKGROUND

Osteoradionecrosis is a long-term, serious side effect of head and neck radiation therapy and is associated with significant morbidity and quality of life issues.

METHODS

This paper sought to determine consensus on the prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis by an international panel of multidisciplinary professionals expert in the management of patients with head and neck cancer using a Delphi methodology. Unique to this work is our direct inclusion of the views of patients and carers in our findings.

RESULTS

This study reached consensus on the importance of pre and post oral health assessment and education for patients with head and neck cancer. This was also noted by the patients and carers who took part in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This work highlights the need for a standardized oral health assessment tool and multidisciplinary care of patients to prevent and manage osteoradionecrosis.

Osteoradionecrosis - an old problem with new consequences

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) is a devasting complication of radiation therapy (RT), especially in head and neck cancers (HNC), and is still poorly understood. The aim of this review is to report its incidence and consider the risk factors associated with ORN to highlight prevention strategies to decrease its incidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

The average incidence of ORN is between 2% and 23%, with incidence decreasing in more recent years with the introduction of modern RT technology and better oral health care. Smoking, diabetes mellitus, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancers, pre- and post-RT dental extractions and a total radiation dose of over 60 Gy were all identified as risk factors for ORN. In prevention, strategies were mainly structured around minimising risk factors or targeting possible mechanisms of ORN's pathophysiology.

SUMMARY

At present, the controversy surrounding the risk factors and pathogenesis of ORN makes it difficult to establish a set of prevention guidelines for its incidence. In order to achieve this, more research examining its aetiology must be conducted as well as a universal staging system within which ORN may be classified.

Salivary Electrostimulation in the Treatment of Radiation Therapy-Induced Xerostomia (LEONIDAS-2): A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Masked, Sham-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy-induced xerostomia significantly affects quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors. Neuro-electrostimulation of the salivary glands may safely increase natural salivation and reduce dry mouth symptoms.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This multicenter, double-masked, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial assessed the long-term effects of a commercially available intraoral neuro-electrostimulating device in lessening xerostomia symptoms, increasing salivary flow, and improving quality of life in individuals with radiation therapy-induced xerostomia. Using a computer-generated randomization list, participants were assigned (1:1) to an active intraoral custom-made removable electrostimulating device or a sham device to be used for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting a 30% improvement on the xerostomia visual analog scale at 12 months. A number of secondary and exploratory outcomes were also assessed through validated measurements (sialometry and visual analog scale) and quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, OH-QoL16, and SF-36).

RESULTS

As per protocol, 86 participants were recruited. Intention-to-treat analyses showed no statistical evidence of a difference between the study groups with respect to the primary outcome or for any of the secondary clinical or quality-of-life outcomes. Exploratory analyses showed a statistically significant difference in the changes over time of the dry mouth subscale score of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 in favor of the active intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

LEONIDAS-2 did not meet the primary and secondary outcomes.

Post-treatment evaluation of oral health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after dental implant rehabilitation

Objectives To assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) following oral rehabilitation using dental implants in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC).Materials and methods Service evaluation: patients who had received dental implants during their oral rehabilitation were invited to take part (n = 81). In total, 37 patients completed questionnaires and underwent a structured interview regarding OHRQoL after rehabilitation. Analysis was by descriptive statistics for questionnaire and thematic analysis of interview.Results Rehabilitation types were 17 fixed implant prostheses, 12 removable implant prostheses and 8 combination. Functional problems relating to HNC treatment had a significant effect on OHRQoL and persisted after rehabilitation. Removable implant prostheses had more problems associated than fixed. At interview, patients described: functional and emotional benefits of oral rehabilitation involving implants; ease of keeping implants clean; variations in ability of primary care dentists to maintain rehabilitation; thankfulness to have received treatment; long duration of rehabilitation; and problems encountered while undergoing rehabilitation.Conclusions HNC treatment results in functional and emotional difficulties, which has a significant impact on OHRQoL. Use of dental implants in fixed or removable oral rehabilitation can result in good OHRQoL as assessed by patients at treatment completion, although some functional difficulties often remain.

Malnutrition, nutrition support and dietary intervention: the role of the dietitian supporting patients with head and neck cancer

Malnutrition is prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) at diagnosis but can occur at any stage of the treatment pathway. The impact of disease burden and treatment side effects can lead to altered anatomy, compromised quality and quantity of saliva and impaired swallowing function, which can result in deleterious effects on nutritional status. Optimising nutrition status is critical, as malnutrition is adversely associated with treatment tolerance and outcomes, wound healing, morbidity, mortality, quality of life and survival. Dietitians are integral members of the HNC multidisciplinary team and are uniquely qualified in the assessment, management and optimisation of nutritional status across the care pathway. This includes providing informational counselling to patients and carers on the short- and long-term nutritional impact of planned treatments alongside multidisciplinary members. Dietitians lead on the recommendation, provision and monitoring of nutrition support, which can be via the oral, enteral or parenteral route. Oral nutrition support includes dietary counselling, nourishing dietary, food fortification advice and high energy/protein oral nutritional supplements. Enteral nutrition support, or tube feeding, can be required on a short- and/or long-term basis and dietitians support appropriate decision-making for the type of tube and timing of placement across the care pathway.

Oral prehabilitation for patients with head and neck cancer: getting it right - the Restorative Dentistry-UK consensus on a multidisciplinary approach to oral and dental assessment and planning prior to cancer treatment

Historically, oral and dental issues for head and neck cancer patients were often not considered until after cancer treatment was complete. As a result, outcomes for oral rehabilitation were sometimes suboptimal. Inconsistencies in service delivery models and qualification, training and experience of staff delivering dental care often compounded this problem, making research and audit almost impossible. Collaborative working by consultants in restorative dentistry from all over the UK as part of a Restorative Dentistry-UK (RD UK) subgroup, renamed more recently as the RD-UK Head and Neck Cancer Clinical Excellence Network (CEN), has re-emphasised the importance of specialist restorative dentistry intervention at the outset of the head and neck cancer pathway to optimise outcomes of patient care. The CEN has driven several initiatives, reflecting Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) principles aimed at reducing unwarranted variation. This improved consistency in approach and optimised collaborative working of the team now presents a better environment for multicentre audit and research. Ultimately, this should result in a continued improvement in patient and carer experience.

Optimal management of oral and dental care in the pre-treatment phase of the head and neck cancer pathway is key to producing the best possible outcomes for patients.

Restorative dentistry consultants are core members of the head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team.

The development of the Restorative Dentistry-UK Head and Neck Cancer Clinical Excellence Network has facilitated the standardisation of evidence-based pathways and models of care. It also provides support for all restorative dentistry consultants working in head and neck cancer, particularly those working single-handedly in district general hospitals.

The worldwide patent landscape of dental implant technology

In an aging society, quality of life improvement is emerging as an important issue, and as implants are accepted as the core of oral rehabilitation treatment, competition for leadership in developing related technologies is intensifying. In this trend, unlike what is evident in the literature, the patent landscape shows the status of industrial-based technology development. A database analysis of a total of 32,237 dental implant patents shows improvements in technology, diverse geographical characteristics, and new advances toward technological convergence in this field. Technologically, dental implant technology has shown a tendency to develop from conventional implant materials and surface treatment technologies to new material technologies making use of substances such as pure zirconium and tantalum or software technologies related to diagnosis and prognosis. Regionally, dental implant technology, which was developed mainly in Europe and the Unites States in the past, is growing explosively in East Asian countries accompanied by the recent growth of the Asian market. In summary, dental implant technology seems to be developing while trying to converge with various technological areas based on the local market environment. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new dental implant material technology that is highly applicable to the development of hybrid information/communication technology and is suitable for a new manufacturing method. Our study may provide important information to help basic and translational researchers and their financial supporters set their research directions in advancing the development of dental implants.

Considerations for restorative dentistry secondary care referrals - part 1: defining strategic importance

Strategic importance is an essential concept for dental service providers. It allows clinicians to differentiate treatment needs on both a patient level and a health care commissioning level, not simply based upon complexity alone. On a patient level, it influences both the clinician's and patient's decision as to whether a tooth/teeth should be restored, as well as determining the possible need for specialist input. On a commissioning level, it facilitates the prioritisation of limited resources.

Strategic importance can be considered at a patient level, taking into factors such as age, tolerance to treatment and the patient's choice. It can also be considered at a mouth level, accounting for factors such as its impact on function and aesthetics function. All these factors together can influence the decision as to whether complex treatment is warranted on a given tooth, especially in a healthcare model where the allocation of limited resources is necessary.

An assessment of strategic importance should be carried out before treatment planning or onward referral to a secondary/tertiary care unit.

Outlines the key considerations for determining strategic importance at a systemic and local level.

Takes into account strategic importance before treatment may be essential in allowing the allocation of resources in both primary and secondary care.

Pathways for the rehabilitation of resection defects in the maxilla

Oral rehabilitation of head and neck cancer patients is an integral component of the care pathway. Maxillectomy procedures can cause significant defects, such as oronasal fistulas, loss of support for the cheek and lip, aesthetic defects in the middle third of the face and functional impairments. Orofacial rehabilitation plays a fundamental role in restoring aesthetics and functional capabilities, such as speech, mastication and deglutition.Rehabilitation of maxillectomy patients poses a challenge for both clinicians and patients. This paper utilises case examples to demonstrate the treatment options for the oral rehabilitation of these patients. We will summarise the treatment pathways for conventional obturators, delayed (secondary) implant retained fixed rehabilitation following composite free flap and early rehabilitation using a zygomatic implant perforated flap technique. This paper aims to highlight the challenges in treatment planning and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in improving patient outcomes.

Dental Evaluation Prior to Cancer Therapy

A comprehensive oral examination and dental care prior to the start of cancer therapy is the standard of care in many cancer centers. This is because good oral health will likely minimize the undesirable complications such as opportunistic infections during cancer therapy. As the considerations differ between anti-neoplastic regimens, this chapter discusses the indications and rationale when planning and executing a treatment plan for patients undergoing various cancer therapies.

An audit into the timing of dental extractions pre-head and neck radiotherapy and the prevalence of osteoradionecrosis

Objective It is recommended that radiotherapy for head and neck cancer commences ten days post-dental extractions to reduce the risk of osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw. However, consideration must be given to patients' survival which might be compromised by delaying radiotherapy for these patients. The records of 154 patients receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck were retrospectively reviewed between July 2016 and August 2017, at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth, to identify patients who have developed ORN, associated risk factors and the relative timings of dental extractions compared to the guidelines of the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS).Results Of a sample of 154 head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, 125 were assessed before radiotherapy, with 102 of these patients (81.2%) requiring dental extractions. This audit indicated that a prevalence of 1.3% of patients developed ORN after radiotherapy, with the timing of dental extractions appearing to show no correlation. Overall, 98.7% of patients were treated as per the current guidelines, with 1.3% of patients breaching the current ten-day protocol.Conclusion In total, 1.3% of 154 head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy between July 2016 and August 2017 developed ORN after a follow-up period of a minimum of 20 months, with the majority of patients within the RCS guidelines for dental extractions, although further improvements and audit cycles are required.

European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a European White Paper document on oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in head and neck cancer (HNC). There are wide variations in the management of OD associated with HNC across Europe.

METHODS

Experts in the management of specific aspects of OD in HNC across Europe were delegated by their professional medical and multidisciplinary societies to contribute to this document. Evidence is based on systematic reviews, consensus-based position statements, and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Twenty-four sections on HNC-specific OD topics.

CONCLUSION

This European White Paper summarizes current best practice on management of OD in HNC, providing recommendations to support patients and health professionals. The body of literature and its level of evidence on diagnostics and treatment for OD in HNC remain poor. This is in the context of an expected increase in the prevalence of OD due to HNC in the near future. Contributing factors to increased prevalence include aging of our European population (including HNC patients) and an increase in human papillomavirus (HPV) related cancer, despite the introduction of HPV vaccination in various countries. We recommend timely implementation of OD screening in HNC patients while emphasizing the need for robust scientific research on the treatment of OD in HNC. Meanwhile, its management remains a challenge for European professional associations and policymakers.

Current concepts and novel techniques in the prosthodontic management of head and neck cancer patients

'The face is the mirror of the mind', so said St Jerome. Patients affected by head and neck cancer have to deal not only with the effects of the disease but also with the effects of the treatment for the disease. This is one cancer which is literally and figuratively 'in your face'! And it is a disease which is difficult to hide. This article attempts to summarise head and neck cancer and its treatment modalities as well as the effects of treatment and the defects it creates. It will also attempt to explore and elaborate on the novel prosthodontic management techniques in advanced jaw reconstruction and extraoral anatomical defects. The concept of functional assessment and rehabilitation in head and neck cancer patient management will also be briefly explained.

The dental management of a mouth cancer patient

Dentists and dental care professionals have a key role to play in the journey of the mouth cancer patient. Involved in the prevention, diagnosis and delivery of oral healthcare before, during and following mouth cancer treatment, dental professionals are essential to the delivery of patient care. This article will explore and consider the priorities of dental pre-assessment and the subsequent delivery of oral healthcare in the context of the different oncology treatment strategies utilised and in end-of-life care. The significant side effects of radiotherapy will be reviewed and clinical dental considerations presented using the existing evidence base and available guidelines. Ensuring mouth cancer does not result in dental disease is an important role for all members of the dental community.

Ability to Propose Optimal Prosthetic Rehabilitation can be Improved by Discussion between the Dentist and Radiation Oncologist Regarding Upstream Dosimetry

Objective Improvement of dental rehabilitation for patients who have undergone radiation therapy requires knowledge of the dose in the maxillary and mandible bones.

Materials and Methods Forty-three patients with head and neck cancers underwent evaluation for dental rehabilitation before radiation treatment dosimetry. The delivered dose to the maxilla and mandible was determined. From the dose data in the literature, three levels of risk of implant failure were defined. According to the delivered doses, the authors calculated the percentage of patients who could be fully rehabilitated with an implant, as proposed by the dentist before radiation planning.

Results Before dosimetry calculation, all of the completely edentulous arches and 94 partially edentulous (PESs) sextants could be optimally rehabilitated. After dose calculation, among the 14 arches of 7 patients who were completely edentulous, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, 11 arches (78.6%) and 7 arches (50%) could receive an optimal prosthesis, respectively. For the three patients, who were PESs but with one arch that was completely edentulous, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, one arch for each dose condition could receive an optimal prosthesis. Among the 94 PESs sextants, according to the mean and maximal delivered doses, 41 (43.6%) and 24 (25.5%) sextants could receive an optimal prosthesis, respectively.

Conclusion By determining the sites of implantation before dosimetry, the radiation oncologist could shield specified areas, potentially improving the possibilities for dental rehabilitation. The dialogue between the dentist and the radiation oncologist can improve the possibilities for implants and decrease the risk of unsafe implantation.