RESUMO
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)
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Neoplasias Bucais/mortalidade , Higiene Bucal , Assistência Odontológica , Cirurgia Bucal/métodos , Odontologia , Medicina Bucal , Saúde Bucal , OncologiaRESUMO
(1) Background: Mucointegration seems to gain interest when talking about success in the maintenance of dental implants. As we well know, collagen fibres cannot be inserted due to the lack of root structure on the implant surface, so the structural integration of peri-implant tissues that provide a firm seal around implants seems to be of interest when it comes to ensuring the survival of dental implants. To achieve a good epithelial barrier, the physicochemical characteristics of the surfaces of the restorative materials are of vital importance; therefore, the objective of this study is to analyse the histological behaviour of the peri-implant soft tissues in three different restorative materials. (2) Methods: Histological analysis of biopsied peri-implant keratinised mucosa, inflammatory epithelium and connective tissue in contact with a reinforced composite (BRILLIANT Crios), a cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate (TELIO CAD), and a hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic), restored on a customised Atlantis-type abutment (Dentsply Sirona) between 60 and 180 days after restoration. (3) Results: A greater number of cells per mm2 of keratinised epithelium is observed in the reinforced composite, which could indicate greater surface roughness with greater inflammatory response. In this way, the greater number of lymphocytes and the lateral cellular composition of the inflammatory cells confirm the greater inflammatory activity towards that material. The best material to rehabilitate was hybrid ceramic, as it shows a better cellular response. (4) Conclusions: Knowing the limitations of the proposed study, despite the fact that greater inflammation is observed in the reinforced composite relative to the other materials studied, no statistically significant differences were found.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Maxillary atrophy may be related to mechanical, inflammatory or systemic factors, being a consequence of a reduction in the amount and quality of available bone. Several surgical techniques have been developed for the restoration of bone volume needed for placing dental implants; guided bone regeneration or three-dimensional reconstructions with autologous bone, inter alia, are techniques described in the literature which demonstrate this, all of which preceded by a proper prosthetic surgical assessment. Even when the majority of authors recommend the use of these techniques prior to placing implants, it has been shown that implants with a smaller diameter and length may be placed in severely atrophied jaws without the need for performing any surgery, offering excellent results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four (24) implants were placed in six patients with severe mandibular atrophy. The implants were placed in the anterior sector and on an internal oblique line. Patients were rehabilitated with a total implant-supported prosthesis, with monitoring over a 10-year period. RESULTS: After a 12-month monitoring period, all the patients presented successful rehabilitation. Marginal bone loss in general (n=24 implants) was +0.11 mm ± 0.53. In the implants in zones 1 and 4 (posterior) it was +0.06 mm ± 0.48 and in implants in zones 2 and 3 (anterior), +0.14 mm ± 0.57. CONCLUSIONS: Implants can be placed in the anterior zone and on an internal oblique line in patients with severe mandibular atrophy, using a diameter and length adapted to bone availability, for later prosthetic rehabilitation, offering satisfactory results since phonetic and masticatory function can be restored, as well as facial and buccal aesthetics, in a single surgical operation, with minimum morbidity. Key words:Severe atrophy, implants, bone grafts, ridge atrophy, internal oblique line.
