Clinical practice guideline of the Spanish society of oral surgery for dental care in patients with oral cancer / Guía de práctica clínica de la sociedad española de cirugía bucal para el cuidado dental en pacientes con cáncer oral

Background: Oral cancer is the sixteenth most common malignant neoplasm worldwide, with a high mortalityrate, greater than 50% at five years, and high morbidity. The effect of oncological treatment in the oral cavity isbroad and has multiple levels, therefore knowing these effects and preventing them is essential for avoiding anincrease in the oral pathology related with oncological therapy, maintaining the quality of life of the patient, andimproving the efficacy of the treatment itself.Material and Methods: A group of experts belonging to the fields of Dentistry, Maxillofacial Surgery and Oncol-ogy of the University of Seville and the Virgen del Rocío University Hospital of Seville in collaboration with theUniversity of Valencia, University of Barcelona, and University of the Basque Country, developed this ClinicalPractice Guideline for the proper clinical management of patients diagnosed with oral cancer. The clinical ques-tions were formulated in PICO format. The databases consulted were Medline/PubMed and Embase/Elsevier. Thesystematic reviews published on the topic were identified on Tripdatabase, Cochrane Library and CRD (Centre forReviews and Dissemination). The recommendations were prepared based on the GRADE methodology.Results: Various recommendations were defined, derived from the 21 PICO questions, referring to prevention,treatment and care for alterations arising from the pathology of oral cancer itself and its treatment.Conclusions: The preparation of this clinical practice guideline allows recommendations to be generated basedon the scientific evidence available, on dentistry actions in patients with oral cancer and undergoing oncologicaltreatment, which may be of use to the multidisciplinary team treating this type of patient.(AU)

Multicentre Prospective Study Analysing Relevant Factors Related to Marginal Bone Loss: A Two-Year Evolution.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this prospective descriptive study was to analyse the possible variables associated with marginal bone loss in rehabilitated implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain) two years after their prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three clinical centres collaborated for a period of two years after the prosthetic rehabilitation of the implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain), in which marginal bone loss and the possible associated variables were evaluated. The collection form comprised different variables throughout different stages of the implant procedure, from implant insertion to the subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation, over a two-year period. Data of the patients and implant characteristics were studied. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for qualitative (univariate logistic regressions, Chi2 test, and Haberman's corrected standardised residuals) and quantitative variables (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). RESULTS: The total study sample consisted of 218 implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain). The sample presented a frequency of 99 men (45.4%) and 119 women (54.6%). The mean age of the patients among the reported cases was 58.56 ± 10.12 years. A statistically significant association was found between marginal bone loss 2 years after prosthetic rehabilitation placement and several variables, including age (under 55 years, 0.25 mm ± 0.56; 55-64 years, 0.74 mm ± 0.57; over 65 years, 0.63 mm ± 0.55; p < 0.0001), gender (female, 0.74 mm ± 0.61; male, 0.34 mm ± 0.51; p < 0.0001), bone quality (D1, 0.75 mm ± 0.62; D2, 0.43 mm ± 0.57; D3, 0.65 mm ± 0.60; p < 0.01), implant diameter (up to 4 mm, 0.49 mm ± 0.58; more than 4 mm, 1.21 mm ± 0.30; p < 0.0001), prosthetic connection type (direct to implant, 0.11 mm ± 0.58; transepithelial straight, 0.67 mm ± 0.57; transepithelial angled, 0.33 mm ± 0.25; p < 0001), implant model (internal conical, 0.17 mm ± 0.24; external conical, 0.48 mm ± 0.61; external cylindrical, 1.12 mm ± 0.32; p < 0.0001), prosthetic restoration type (full denture, 0.59 mm ± 0.59; partial denture, 0.50 mm ± 0.85; unitary crown, 0.08 mm ± 0.19; p < 0.05), and insertion torque (>35 N/cm, 0.53 mm ± 0.58; <35 N/cm, 1.04 mm ± 0.63; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years, marginal bone loss following prosthetic rehabilitation was shown to be influenced by multiple factors. Correct implantological planning is of vital importance for successful rehabilitation.