Molecular buckets: cyclodextrins for oral cancer therapy

The oral route is preferred by patients for drug administration due to its convenience, resulting in improved compliance. Unfortunately, for a number of drugs (e.g., anticancer drugs), this route of administration remains a challenge. Oral chemotherapy may be an attractive option and especially appropriate for chronic treatment of cancer. However, this route of administration is particularly complicated for the administration of anticancer drugs ascribed to Class IV of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System. This group of compounds is characterized by low aqueous solubility and low intestinal permeability. This review focuses on the use of cyclodextrins alone or in combination with bioadhesive nanoparticles for oral delivery of drugs. The state-of-the-art technology and challenges in this area is also discussed

Molecular buckets: cyclodextrins for oral cancer therapy

The oral route is preferred by patients for drug administration due to its convenience, resulting in improved compliance. Unfortunately, for a number of drugs (e.g., anticancer drugs), this route of administration remains a challenge. Oral chemotherapy may be an attractive option and especially appropriate for chronic treatment of cancer. However, this route of administration is particularly complicated for the administration of anticancer drugs ascribed to Class IV of the Biopharmaceutical Classification System. This group of compounds is characterized by low aqueous solubility and low intestinal permeability. This review focuses on the use of cyclodextrins alone or in combination with bioadhesive nanoparticles for oral delivery of drugs. The state-of-the-art technology and challenges in this area is also discussed

A new mobile cross-platform application for caries risk assessment

International audienc

When to intervene in the caries process? An expert Delphi consensus statement

Objectives: To define an expert Delphi consensus on when to intervene in the caries process and on existing carious lesions using non- or micro-invasive, invasive/restorative or mixed interventions. Methods: Non-systematic literature synthesis, expert Delphi consensus process and expert panel conference. Results: Carious lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Inactive lesions do not require treatment (in some cases, restorations will be placed for reasons of form, function and aesthetics); active lesions do. Non-cavitated carious lesions should be managed non- or micro-invasively, as should most cavitated carious lesions which are cleansable. Cavitated lesions which are not cleansable usually require invasive/restorative management, to restore form, function and aesthetics. In specific circumstances, mixed interventions may be applicable. On occlusal surfaces, cavitated lesions confined to enamel and non-cavitated lesions radiographically extending deep into dentine (middle or inner dentine third, D2/3) may be exceptions to that rule. On proximal surfaces, cavitation is hard to assess visually or by using tactile methods. Hence, radiographic lesion depth is used to determine the likelihood of cavitation. Most lesions radiographically extending into the middle or inner third of the dentine (D2/3) can be assumed to be cavitated, while those restricted to the enamel (E1/2) are not cavitated. For lesions radiographically extending into the outer third of the dentine (D1), cavitation is unlikely, and these lesions should be managed as if they were non-cavitated unless otherwise indicated. Individual decisions should consider factors modifying these thresholds. Conclusions: Comprehensive diagnostics are the basis for systematic decision-making on when to intervene in the caries process and on existing carious lesions. Clinical relevance: Carious lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Invasive treatments should be applied restrictively and with these factors in mind

When to intervene in the caries process? A Delphi consensus statement

Objectives To define an expert Delphi consensus on when to intervene in the caries process and existing carious lesions. Methods Non-systematic literature synthesis, expert Delphi consensus process and expert panel conference. Results Lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Inactive lesions do not require treatment (in some cases, restorations may be placed for form, function, aesthetics); active lesions do. Non-cavitated carious lesions should be managed non- or micro-invasively, as should most cavitated lesions which are cleansable. Cavitated lesions which are not cleansable usually require minimally invasive management. In specific circumstances, mixed interventions may be applicable. Occlusally, cavitated lesions confined to enamel/non-cavitated lesions extending radiographically into deep dentine may be exceptions. Proximally, cavitation is hard to assess tactile-visually. Most lesions extending radiographically into the middle/inner third of dentine are assumed to be cavitated. Those restricted to the enamel are not cavitated. For lesions extending radiographically into the outer third of dentine, cavitation is unlikely. These lesions should be managed as if they were non-cavitated unless otherwise indicated. Individual decisions should consider factors modifying these thresholds. Conclusions Comprehensive diagnosis is the basis for systematic decision-making on when to intervene in the caries process and existing lesions