Allergic rhinitis and dental caries: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases affecting millions of people globally. Some studies revealed the presence of bidirectional relationship between allergic rhinitis (AR) and oral diseases, with each disease having a potential impact on the other. In this study we aimed to systematically review the literature and analyze the available evidence regarding whether AR contributes to the development of dental caries. METHODS: Three authors, members of the YO-IFOS rhinology study group, independently analyzed the data sources (Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SciELO) for papers assessing the relationship between rhinitis and caries, in adult and pediatric patients. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (87612 participants). Six studies were performed in children. A total of three studies found an association between AR and dental caries. Only two studies had adjusted the measure of effect for potentially confounding variables. Regarding the quality of the selected studies according to the NICE classification, the most observed methodological limitations detected were: (1) the cross-sectional design of the included studies which could have introduced a simultaneity bias, and (2) not clearly reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: This systematic review can neither confirm nor deny the presence of an association between AR and caries. Despite the evidence is very scarce to conclude a relationship between AR and caries, the option for examining patients with repetitive caries by an otolaryngologist and those with AR by odontologist should be considered, as these examinations do not possess any risk for the patient.

The Recumbent Position Affects Nasal Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Nasal diseases are among the main motives for the early discontinuation of continuous positive airway pressure therapy and for long-term therapeutic compliance with mandibular advancement device. Although our clinical experience leads us to the belief that recumbency impacts nasal airflow in some patient populations, there is no consensus regarding the magnitude of this effect and the specific group of patients who are the most affected by this condition. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of the recumbent position on nasal resistance and nasal airflow. REVIEW METHODS: PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, and SciELO databases were checked for relevant studies by two members of the YO-IFOS study group. The two authors extracted the data. The main outcome was expressed as the difference between nasal resistance and nasal airflow before and after recumbency. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total population of 291 individuals were included in the meta-analysis for nasal resistance after recumbency. We found a statistically significant difference in nasal airway resistance of -0.18 Pa sec/cm3 as compared to before and after recumbency through rhinomanometry (RMM) analysis. A subgroup analysis revealed a variation of -0.20 Pa sec/cm3 for patients with snoring or sleep apnea and - 0.10 Pa sec/cm3 for healthy individuals. Regarding nasal airflow measured with RMM, three studies (n = 32) in asymptomatic controls revealed a statistically significant difference of 47.33 ml/sec. CONCLUSIONS: Recumbency increases nasal resistance and diminishes nasal airflow. This finding is of utmost importance in snorers and sleep apnea patients. Laryngoscope, 132:6-16, 2022.