A national survey of consultants, specialists and specialist registrars in restorative dentistry for the assessment and treatment planning of oral cancer patients

Is Systemic Immunosuppression a Risk Factor for Oral Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if the relationship between immunosuppression and increased incidence of systemic cancers is well known, there is less awareness about the risk of developing oral cancer in immunosuppressed patients. The aim of this review was to evaluate the association between immunosuppression and the development of oral cancer. Two authors independently and, in duplicate, conducted a systematic literature review of international journals and electronic databases (MEDLINE via OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science) from their inception to 28 April 2023. The assessment of risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE system. A total of 2843 articles was identified, of which 44 met the inclusion criteria and were included in either the qualitative or quantitative analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally high or moderate. The quantitative analysis of the studies revealed that immunosuppression should be considered a risk factor for the development of oral cancer, with a percentage of increased risk ranging from 0.2% to 1% (95% CI: 0.2% to 1.4%). In conclusion, the results suggest that a constant and accurate follow-up should be reserved for all immunosuppressed patients as a crucial strategy to intercept lesions that have an increased potential to evolve into oral cancer.

Awareness of the risk of radiation-related caries in patients with head and neck cancer: A survey of physicians, dentists, and patients

OBJECTIVES

Radiation-related caries (RRC) is one of the most aggressive complications of radiotherapy (RT) in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC). Lack of RRC awareness may contribute to the occurrence of this oral cavity complication. RRC may be considered a "forgotten oral complication" by patients with HNC, oncologists, and dentists. The present study aimed to assess the level of awareness of RRC among physicians, dentists, and patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Physicians (group 1, G1), dentists (group 2, G2), and patients with HNC undergoing RT (group 3, G3) answered questionnaires concerning their awareness of RRC. Physicians (G1) were divided into group 1A (oncological experience) and group 1B (general physicians/other specialties). Dentists (G2) were divided into group 2A (oncological experience) and group 2B (general dentists/other specialties). Personalized questionnaires were designed for each group.

RESULTS

Recruitment was as follows: physicians (n = 124): 1A (n = 64), 1B (n = 60); dentists: (n = 280), 2A (n = 160), 2B (n = 120). In addition, 58 patients answered the questionnaire. In terms of RRC awareness, 46.77% of physicians, 81.78% of dentists, and 24.13% of patients had some knowledge of the problem.

CONCLUSION

Patient awareness of RRC was poor. The heterogeneity of answers among physicians and dentists suggests an opportunity to improve patient education and prevention of this serious oral complication of RT.

Pre-radiotherapy dental extractions in patients with head and neck cancer: a Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

To gain a consensus from consultants in restorative dentistry about the types of teeth that should be extracted from head and neck cancer patients (HNC) pre-radiotherapy.

MATERIALS

Literature- and clinician-informed questionnaires were emailed to an 'expert panel' of consultants (n = 24/28; 86%) in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland on three consecutive occasions (Delphi rounds). The results of Round 1 were used to revise the questionnaire that was distributed in Round 2, and this procedure was repeated for Round 3. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants were asked to indicate, on a 5-point Likert scale, their level of agreement with a series of statements on the types of teeth that should be extracted pre-radiotherapy. The target level of consensus for each statement was 70%.

RESULTS

In Round 2, there was consensus-agreement for 69 of 102 statements (i.e. ≥ 70% of participants rated 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the relevant statement). Consensus agreement was also achieved for 20 of 28 statements in Round 3. Therefore, a total of 89 consensus statements are presented that illuminate the decision-making process for the pre-radiotherapy extraction of molar, premolar, and anterior teeth with periodontal pocketing, furcation disease, mobility, caries, tooth-wear, apical disease, or other pathology.

CONCLUSION

The statements represent the consensus professional views of participated consultants in restorative dentistry in the UK and Ireland regarding the types of teeth that should be extracted from HNC patients pre-radiotherapy. The results provide a platform for the development of future guidelines.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Pre-radiotherapy dental assessments for head and neck cancer patients are considered mandatory. This study presents different criteria that should be considered for the treatment planning of these patients in relation to pre-radiotherapy extractions, according to the collective consensus opinion of participated consultants in restorative dentistry in the UK and Ireland.

The reconstructive oral cancer patient: what the general dental practitioner needs to know

The rate of oral cancer is on the rise; lesions are often being picked up late meaning it is necessary for patients to undergo multidisciplinary head and neck reconstruction. Working in a specialist head and neck oncology unit this year has opened my eyes as to how this patient subgroup is managed, with regards to both a surgical and restorative basis. This article has been written to help inform GDPs about the upcoming NHS guidelines, 'The NHS Oral Cancer Toolkit', in the management of oral cancer patients. Furthermore, I hope that the reader gains an appreciation for what the oral cancer patient endures on their toilsome journey. This article is designed as a refresher on the restorative management of the oral cancer patient. After having read this article you will have an improved awareness of the '8-step' oral cancer screen and an insight as to what happens when the patient is sent on the urgent cancer pathway. Most importantly, this paper will refresh your learning on what the GDP needs to do in the preoperative and postoperative phases with regards to the oral health and wellbeing of the reconstructive oral cancer patient.

A cross sectional study of dental implant service provision in British and Irish dental hospitals

Introduction There are multiple ways in which treatment using dental implants is provided in a secondary care setting, not only in terms of the groups of patients treated, but also the clinicians who provide that care.Methods An online survey was circulated to speciality registrars in restorative dentistry in all UK dental hospitals and to postgraduate students in prosthodontics in the Republic of Ireland, consisting of nine questions aimed at understanding which patient groups are treated using dental implants in a hospital setting, how cases are planned, executed and to explore the underlying reasons for each unit's method of provision.Results Completed surveys were received from 67% of dental hospitals in Britain and Ireland. Treatment planning was undertaken by the restorative team alone in 64% of units in patients with hypodontia, 57% with trauma and 71% with an atrophic edentulous ridge and by a multi-disciplinary team in 50% of units for patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and 45% with head and neck (H&N) cancer. The restorative team place all or most of the implant fixtures in 50% of units in patients with CLP, 71% in trauma patients, 71% in hypodontia patients, 64% in edentulous patients and 43% in H&N oncology patients. Stents are produced and used by the restorative team in 64% of units for edentulous patients, 79% of patients with hypodontia, 79% of those suffering trauma, 58% of CLP patients and 50% of patients with H&N cancer. Twenty-one percent of responding units had stents made by the restorative team and used by the surgical team. The median percentage of implant-supported restorations that are screw retained is 90% (SD: 4.93, range: 25-95%) and the median percentage of zirconia abutments being used is 22.5% (SD: 5.24, range: 0-50%). Use of zygomatic implants varies hugely between responding units with 43% of them not placing any zygomatic implants.Conclusions There is a wide range of protocols and team members involved in the provision of dental implant rehabilitations throughout the British Isles reflecting the lack of any single evidence-based approach. A multi-disciplinary team approach with the restorative dentist as a key member is likely to yield the most favourable long term outcomes.

Evidence-based dentistry for planning restorative treatments: barriers and potential solutions

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) can help provide the best treatment option for every patient, however, its implementation in restorative dentistry is very limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at assessing the barriers preventing the implementation of EBD among dental undergraduate and graduate students in Montreal, and explore possible solutions to overcome these barriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted by means of a paper format self-administrated questionnaire distributed among dental students. The survey assessed the barriers and potential solutions for implementation of an evidence-based practice.

RESULTS

Sixty-one students completed the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of respondents found evidence-based literature to be the most reliable source of information for restorative treatment planning, however, only 16% used it. They considered that finding reliable information was difficult and they sometimes encountered conflicting information when consulting different sources. Dental students had positive attitudes towards the need for better access to evidence-based literature to assist learning and decision making in restorative treatment planning and to improve treatment outcomes. Even for dentists trained in EBD, online searching takes too much time, and even though it can provide information of better quality than personal intuition, it might not be enough to identify the best available evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though dental students are aware of the importance of EBD in restorative dentistry they rarely apply the concept, mainly due to time constraints. For this reason, implementation of EBD would probably require faster access to evidence-based knowledge.

Restorative dentistry and oral rehabilitation: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines

This is the official guideline endorsed by the specialty associations involved in the care of head and neck cancer patients in the UK and provides recommendations on the pre-treatment oral and dental assessment, during and after treatment and oral rehabilitation. Restorative dentists are core members of the multidisciplinary team treating head and neck cancer patients, involved from the treatment planning phase through to long-term rehabilitation.