Interventions for managing oral submucous fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic disease of the oral cavity that causes progressive constriction of the cheeks and mouth accompanied by severe pain and reduced mouth opening. OSF has a significant impact on eating and swallowing, affecting quality of life. There is an increased risk of oral malignancy in people with OSF. The main risk factor for OSF is areca nut chewing, and the mainstay of treatment has been behavioural interventions to support habit cessation. This review is an update of a version last published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for the management of oral submucous fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 5 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of OSF treated with systemic, locally delivered or topical drugs at any dosage, duration or delivery method compared against placebo or each other. We considered surgical procedures compared against other treatments or no active intervention. We also considered other interventions such as physiotherapy, ultrasound or alternative therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech; 2. change or improvement in maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance); 3. improvement in range of jaw movement; 4. change in severity of oral/mucosal burning pain/sensation; 5. ADVERSE EFFECTS: Our secondary outcomes were 6. quality of life; 7. postoperative discomfort or pain as a result of the intervention; 8. participant satisfaction; 9. hospital admission; 10. direct costs of medication, hospital bed days and any associated inpatient costs for the surgical interventions. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs (2176 participants) in this updated review. We assessed one study at low risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias and 24 studies at high risk of bias. We found diverse interventions, which we categorised according to putative mechanism of action. We present below our main findings for the comparison 'any intervention compared with placebo or no active treatment' (though most trials included habit cessation for all participants). Results for head-to-head comparisons of active interventions are presented in full in the main review. Any intervention versus placebo or no active treatment Participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech No studies reported this outcome. Interincisal distance Antioxidants may increase mouth opening (indicated by interincisal distance (mm)) when measured at less than three months (mean difference (MD) 3.11 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 5.77; 2 studies, 520 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably increase mouth opening slightly at three to six months (MD 8.83 mm, 95% CI 8.22 to 9.45; 3 studies, 620 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antioxidants may make no difference to interincisal distance at six-month follow-up or greater (MD -1.41 mm, 95% CI -5.74 to 2.92; 1 study, 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline may increase mouth opening slightly (MD 1.80 mm, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, it should be noted that these results are all less than 10 mm, which could be considered the minimal change that is meaningful to someone with oral submucous fibrosis. The evidence was very uncertain for all other interventions compared to placebo or no active treatment (intralesional dexamethasone injections, pentoxifylline, hydrocortisone plus hyaluronidase, physiotherapy). Burning sensation Antioxidants probably reduce burning sensation visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at less than three months (MD -30.92 mm, 95% CI -31.57 to -30.27; 1 study, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), at three to six months (MD -70.82 mm, 95% CI -94.39 to -47.25; 2 studies, 500 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and at more than six months (MD -27.60 mm, 95% CI -36.21 to -18.99; 1 study, 90 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the other interventions that were compared to placebo and measured burning sensation (intralesional dexamethasone, vasodilators). Adverse effects Fifteen studies reported adverse effects as an outcome. Six of these studies found no adverse effects. One study evaluating abdominal dermal fat graft reported serious adverse effects resulting in prolonged hospital stay for 3/30 participants. There were mild and transient general adverse effects to systemic drugs, such as dyspepsia, abdominal pain and bloating, gastritis and nausea, in studies evaluating vasodilators and antioxidants in particular. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-certainty evidence that antioxidants administered systemically probably improve mouth opening slightly at three to six months and improve burning sensation VAS scores up to and beyond six months. We found only low/very low-certainty evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed judgement about potential adverse effects associated with any of these treatments. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the other interventions tested. High-quality, adequately powered intervention trials with a low risk of bias that compare biologically plausible treatments for OSF are needed. It is important that relevant participant-reported outcomes are evaluated.

Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis.  Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care.  We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

Developing and validating the model of tumor-infiltrating immune cell to predict survival in patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) is a mainstay of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatment. Due to the influence of RT on tumor cells and immune/stromal cells in microenvironment, some studies suggest that immunologic landscape could shape treatment response. To better predict the survival based on genomic data, we developed a prognostic model using tumor-infiltrating immune cell (TIIC) signature to predict survival in patients undergoing RT for HNSCC. Methods: Gene expression data and clinical information were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. Data from HNSCC patients undergoing RT were extracted for analysis. TIICs prevalence in HNSCC patients was quantified by gene set variation analysis (GSVA) algorithm. TIICs and post-RT survival were analyzed using univariate Cox regression analysis and used to construct and validate a tumor-infiltrating cells score (TICS). Results: Five of 26 immune cells were significantly associated with HNSCC prognosis in the training cohort (all P<0.05). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves showed that patients in the high TICS group had better survival outcomes (log-rank test, P<0.05). Univariate analyses demonstrated that the TICS had independent prognostic predictive ability for RT outcomes (P<0.05). Patients with high TICS scores showed significantly higher expression of immune-related genes. Functional pathway analyses further showed that the TICS was significantly related to immune-related biological process. Stratified analyses supported integrating TICS and tumor mutation burden (TMB) into individualized treatment planning, as an adjunct to classification by clinical stage and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Conclusions: The TICS model supports a personalized medicine approach to RT for HNSCC. Increased prevalence of TIIC within the tumor microenvironment (TME) confers a better prognosis for patients undergoing treatment for HNSCC.

COVID-19 case management in primary dental care settings in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Introduction Emerging guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic aimed to minimise transmission risk within dental settings. This service evaluation provides an overview of reported cases of COVID-19 among primary dental care staff within Yorkshire and the Humber.Methods Data for COVID-19 cases reported within dental practices between November 2020 and August 2021 were extracted from the Public Health England, Health Protection Zone database and summarised using descriptive statistics.Results In total, 421 cases across 223 dental practices were reported, with 221 close contacts and 77 outbreaks identified. Cases/contacts were highest among dental nurses (51/49%). Household and community (42/22%) were the most frequently reported sources of transmission, with the majority of staff-to-staff contacts (60%) occurring in communal/non-clinical areas.Discussion There was a low number of reported COVID-19 cases/contacts among dental professionals, with most cases suspected to have acquired the infection from outside of the dental setting. The majority of personal protective equipment breaches occurred within communal/non-clinical areas. When infection prevention and control guidance was followed, there were no incidences of staff or patients becoming contacts or cases.Conclusion With adherence to strict protocols, the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the dental setting was low within the context of this review. The evaluation highlighted the importance of collaborative working during the pandemic.

Compositional shifts within the denture-associated bacteriome in pneumonia - an analytical cross-sectional study.

Introduction. Bacterial pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in elderly individuals. While the incidence of edentulism is falling, approximately 19 % of the UK population wear a full or partial removable denture. Despite advances in denture biomaterials, the majority of dentures are fabricated using polymethyl-methacrylate. Growing evidence suggests that colonization of the oral cavity by putative respiratory pathogens predisposes individuals to respiratory infection, by translocation of these microorganisms along the respiratory tract.Hypothesis/Gap Statement. We hypothesized that denture surfaces provide a susceptible colonization site for putative respiratory pathogens, and thus could increase pneumonia risk in susceptible individuals.Aim. This study aimed to characterize the bacterial community composition of denture-wearers in respiratory health compared with individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of pneumonia.Methodology. This was an analytical cross-sectional study, comparing frail elderly individuals without respiratory infection (n=35) to hospitalized patients with pneumonia (n=26). The primary outcome was the relative abundance of putative respiratory pathogens identified by 16S rRNA metataxonomic sequencing, with quantitative PCR used to identified Streptococcus pneumoniae.Results. There was a statistically significant increase in the overall relative abundance of putative respiratory pathogens (P<0.0001), with a greater than 20-fold increase in the bioburden of these microorganisms. In keeping with these findings, there were significant shifts in bacterial community diversity (Chao index, P=0.0003) and richness (Inverse Simpson index P<0.0001) in the denture-associated microbiota of pneumonia patients compared with control subjects.Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, our evidence supports the role of denture acrylic biomaterials as a potential colonization site for putative respiratory pathogens, which may lead to an increased risk of pneumonia in susceptible individuals. These findings support prior observational studies which have found denture-wearers to be at increased risk of respiratory infection. Further research is needed to confirm the sequence of colonization and translocation to examine potential causal relationships.

Does periodontal treatment improve rheumatoid arthritis disease activity? A systematic review.

Objectives: The association of periodontal disease in people diagnosed with RA is emerging as an important driver of the RA autoimmune response. Screening for and treating periodontal disease might benefit people with RA. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate the effect of periodontal treatment on RA disease activity. Methods: Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched. Studies investigating the effect of periodontal treatment on various RA disease activity measures were included. The quality of included studies was assessed. Data were grouped and analysed according to RA disease outcome measures, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: We identified a total of 21 studies, of which 11 were of non-randomized experimental design trials and 10 were randomized controlled trials. The quality of the studies ranged from low to serious/critical levels of bias. RA DAS-28 was the primary outcome for most studies. A total of 9 out of 17 studies reported a significant intra-group change in DAS-28. Three studies demonstrated a significant intra-group improvement in ACPA level after non-surgical periodontal treatment. Other RA biomarkers showed high levels of variability at baseline and after periodontal treatment. Conclusion: There is some evidence to suggest that periodontal treatment improves RA disease activity in the short term, as measured by DAS-28. Further high-quality studies with longer durations of follow-up are needed. The selection of the study population, periodontal interventions, biomarkers and outcome measures should all be considered when designing future studies. There is a need for well-balanced subject groups with prespecified disease characteristics.

Microbial profiling of dental plaque from mechanically ventilated patients.

Micro-organisms isolated from the oral cavity may translocate to the lower airways during mechanical ventilation (MV) leading to ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Changes within the dental plaque microbiome during MV have been documented previously, primarily using culture-based techniques. The aim of this study was to use community profiling by high throughput sequencing to comprehensively analyse suggested microbial changes within dental plaque during MV. Bacterial 16S rDNA gene sequences were obtained from 38 samples of dental plaque sampled from 13 mechanically ventilated patients and sequenced using the Illumina platform. Sequences were processed using Mothur, applying a 97% gene similarity cut-off for bacterial species level identifications. A significant 'microbial shift' occurred in the microbial community of dental plaque during MV for nine out of 13 patients. Following extubation, or removal of the endotracheal tube that facilitates ventilation, sampling revealed a decrease in the relative abundance of potential respiratory pathogens and a compositional change towards a more predominantly (in terms of abundance) oral microbiota including Prevotella spp., and streptococci. The results highlight the need to better understand microbial shifts in the oral microbiome in the development of strategies to reduce VAP, and may have implications for the development of other forms of pneumonia such as community-acquired infection.