Oncologists' Perspective on Dental Care Around the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: A Pattern of Practice Survey.

PURPOSE: Patients with head and neck cancer are at risk of long-term dental complications. Proper dental assessment pre- and post-treatment can improve outcomes but is logistically challenging. We surveyed oncologists to better understand their perspectives surrounding dental care in this unique population. METHODS: We surveyed oncologists at institutions associated with an ongoing national study of oral health after treatment of head and neck cancer. Seventeen questions were used to assess provider characteristics, patterns of practice, patterns of referral, barriers to referral, and willingness to apply fluoride varnish in the oncology clinic. RESULTS: Ninety-seven oncologists were invited from six institutions, of whom 40 (41%) responded. Surgeons represented 45% of the sample, followed by radiation oncologists (40%) and medical oncologists (15%). Both generalists and subspecialists were included. All practiced in a metropolitan area with an academic dental practice, and many felt that this improved access to care. Despite this, most oncologists thought that financial factors were a significant barrier to obtaining timely dental care. Most oncologists performed a dental assessment during visits. Oncologists felt qualified to identify the most significant complications of treatment, such as exposed bone, but felt underqualified to identify early changes in need of intervention. When asked if the oncology clinic could apply fluoride varnish during follow-ups, most stated that this seemed feasible but would require education and financial support. CONCLUSION: Oncologists often perform limited dental evaluations during their routine visits. Given the challenges associated with access to proper dental care for this population, these oncology visits may provide a window for preventative intervention.

Predictors of symptomatic oral lichen planus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and the factors associated with symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP). STUDY DESIGN: Patients with OLP seen for an initial visit were assessed retrospectively. Initial visit data included demographic characteristics; social, medical, and OLP treatment histories; medications; chief complaints, 0 to 10 pain level; OLP duration and symptoms; OLP type and location; total OLP lesion size (mm2); total ulcer size (mm2); and fungal infection and its management. Follow-up data included 0 to 10 pain level and total lesion and ulcer sizes. RESULTS: We assessed 205 patients: 154 (75%) were women, and the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 62.5 (11.5) years. The mean (SD) current pain level was 1.6 (2.2) at the initial visit. A total of 125 patients (61%) were classified as symptomatic, including 85 (41%) patients reporting a pain level of 1 or greater and another 40 patients (20%) who had symptoms not described as pain at the initial visit. The following increased the odds of OLP symptoms at the initial visit: tongue location (× 2.3), erosive/erythematous type (× 2.3), female sex (× 2.9), topical steroid use before initial visit (× 2.1), and number of medical conditions (× 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with OLP in the present cohort were symptomatic at the initial visit, with location, type, sex, steroid use and medical conditions being predictors of symptomatic OLP. Despite improvement in OLP symptoms in most patients over time, 25% of patients who are asymptomatic at the initial visit present with symptomatic OLP at a future visit.

Impact of salivary hypofunction on incidence of orofungal infections with use of topical steroids for management of oral lichen planus and xerostomia.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if salivary hypofunction increases the incidence of oral fungal infections (OFIs) after topical steroid use for the management of oral lichen planus (OLP). STUDY DESIGN: Patients with a diagnosis of OLP, treated for at least 2 weeks with topical steroids, had baseline salivary flow evaluations completed, and had a follow-up visit within 5 weeks of steroids being prescribed were assessed. Patients were evaluated for clinical signs of fungal infection at follow-up visits. RESULTS: Forty-Seven patients (91% female) met the inclusion criteria, with 21.3% developing an OFI after topical steroid use. Demographic characteristics, type of OLP, steroid used, and antifungal used did not impact the development of an OFI. The mean stimulated salivary flow was significantly lower in the group that developed an OFI compared with the group that did not develop an OFI (8.31 mL/15 min vs 15.4 mL/15 min, respectively; P = 0.0006). A higher incidence of OFIs occurred in the low stimulated flow group versus the normal flow group (39% vs 4%, respectively). Most patients in the OFI group received a preventative antifungal (90%). CONCLUSIONS: OFIs increased after steroid treatment in patients with OLP who had low stimulated salivary flows. Antifungals (90%) were not effective in preventing OFIs in patients with OLP who had salivary hypofunction and were treated with topical steroids.