Topical fluoride as a cause of dental fluorosis in children

BACKGROUND: For many years, topical use of fluorides has gained greater popularity than systemic use of fluorides. A possible adverse effect associated with the use of topical fluoride is the development of dental fluorosis due to the ingestion of excessive fluoride by young children with developing teeth. OBJECTIVES: To describe the relationship between the use of topical fluorides in young children and the risk of developing dental fluorosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Dissertation Abstracts and LILACS/BBO. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched. Date of the most recent searches: 9th March 09. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys, in which fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses, gels, foams, paint-on solutions, and varnishes were compared to an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo or no intervention group. Children under the age of 6 years at the time topical fluorides were used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from all included studies were extracted by two review authors. Risk ratios for controlled, prospective studies and odds ratios for case-control studies or cross-sectional surveys were extracted or calculated. Where both adjusted and unadjusted risk ratios or odds ratios were presented, the adjusted value was included in the meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: 25 studies were included: 2 RCTs, 1 cohort study, 6 case-control studies and 16 cross-sectional surveys. Only one RCT was judged to be at low risk of bias. The other RCT and all observational studies were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. Studies were included in four intervention/exposure comparisons. A statistically significant reduction in fluorosis was found if brushing of a child's teeth with fluoride toothpaste commenced after the age of 12 months odds ratio 0.70 (random-effects: 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.88) (data from observational studies). Inconsistent statistically significant associations were found between starting using fluoride toothpaste/toothbrushing before or after the age of 24 months and fluorosis (data from observational studies). From the RCTs, use of higher level of fluoride was associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. No significant association between the frequency of toothbrushing or the amount of fluoride toothpaste used and fluorosis was found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There should be a balanced consideration between the benefits of topical fluorides in caries prevention and the risk of the development of fluorosis. Most of the available evidence focuses on mild fluorosis. There is weak unreliable evidence that starting the use of fluoride toothpaste in children under 12 months of age may be associated with an increased risk of fluorosis. The evidence for its use between the age of 12 and 24 months is equivocal. If the risk of fluorosis is of concern, the fluoride level of toothpaste for young children (under 6 years of age) is recommended to be lower than 1000 parts per million (ppm).More evidence with low risk of bias is needed. Future trials assessing the effectiveness of different types of topical fluorides (including toothpastes, gels, varnishes and mouthrinses) or different concentrations or both should ensure that they include an adequate follow-up period in order to collect data on potential fluorosis. As it is unethical to propose RCTs to assess fluorosis itself, it is acknowledged that further observational studies will be undertaken in this area. However, attention needs to be given to the choice of study design, bearing in mind that prospective, controlled studies will be less susceptible to bias than retrospective and/or uncontrolled studies

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. OBJECTIVES: To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease free survival, progression free survival and reduced recurrence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 February 2011) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 February 2011). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared two or more surgical treatment modalities or surgery versus other treatment modalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was undertaken independently by two or more review authors. Study authors were contacted for additional information as required. Adverse events data were collected from published trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (n = 669; 667 with cancers of the oral cavity) satisfied the inclusion criteria, but none were assessed as low risk of bias. Trials were grouped into three main comparisons. Four trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate. Three of these trials reported overall and disease free survival. One trial showed a benefit for elective supraomohyoid neck dissection compared to therapeutic ND in overall and disease free survival. Two trials found no difference between elective radical ND and therapeutic ND for the outcomes of overall survival and disease free survival. All four trials found reduced locoregional recurrence following elective ND.A further two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND and found no difference in overall survival, disease free survival or recurrence. The final trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.None of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome. Two trials, evaluating different comparisons reported adverse effects of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Seven included trials evaluated neck dissection surgery in patients with oral cavity cancers. The review found weak evidence that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour results in reduced locoregional recurrence, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that elective neck dissection increases overall survival or disease free survival compared to therapeutic neck dissection. There is very weak evidence from one trial that elective supraomohyoid neck dissection may be associated with increased overall and disease free survival. There is no evidence that radical neck dissection increases overall survival compared to conservative neck dissection surgery. Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of patients undergoing different surgeries

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Systematic Revie

Examining the effectiveness of different dental recall strategies on maintenance of optimum oral health: the INTERVAL dental recalls randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of different frequencies of dental recall over a four-year period. Design A multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment. Participants were randomised to receive a dental check-up at six-monthly, 24-monthly or risk-based recall intervals. A two-strata trial design was used, with participants randomised within the 24-month stratum if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or six-month recall interval. Setting UK primary dental care. Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups. Main outcome measures The percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), cost-effectiveness. Results In total, 2,372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices. Of those, 648 were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1,724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing between intervention arms in any comparison. For those eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month versus six-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91%, 95% CI (-5.02%, 3.20%); the 24-month group versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07%, 95% CI (-3.99%, 4.12%). For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month adjusted mean difference was 0.78%, 95% CI (-1.17%, 2.72%). There was no evidence of a difference in OHRQoL (0-56 scale, higher score for poorer OHRQoL) between intervention arms in any comparison. For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month effect size was -0.35, 95% CI (-1.02, 0.32). There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference between the groups in any comparison in either eligibility stratum for any of the secondary clinical or patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion Over a four-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a six-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, six-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, patients greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups

Effect of leaving chronic oral foci untreated on infectious complications during intensive chemotherapy

BACKGROUND: Leukaemic patients receiving intensive chemotherapy and patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) are routinely screened for oral foci of infection to reduce infectious complications that could occur during therapy. In this prospective study we assessed the effect of leaving chronic oral foci of infection untreated on the development of infectious complications in intensively treated haematological patients. METHODS: We included and prospectively evaluated all intensively treated leukaemic patients and patients undergoing ASCT who were referred to our medical centre between September 2012 and May 2014, and who matched the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Acute oral foci of infection were removed before chemotherapy or ASCT, whereas chronic oral foci were left untreated. RESULTS: In total 28 leukaemic and 35 ASCT patients were included. Acute oral foci of infection were found in 2 leukaemic (7%) and 2 ASCT patients (6%), and chronic oral foci of infection in 24 leukaemic (86%) and 22 ASCT patients (63%). Positive blood cultures with microorganisms potentially originating from the oral cavity occurred in 7 patients during treatment, but were uneventful on development of infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective study supports the hypothesis that chronic oral foci of infection can be left untreated as this does not increase infectious complications during intensive chemotherapy.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 22 March 2016; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.60 www.bjcancer.com