Implants in patients with oral manifestations of autoimmune or muco-cutaneous diseases : a systematic review

To give an overview on implant survival rates in patients with oral manifestations of systemic autoimmune (oral Lichen planus (oLp), Pemphigus (Pe)), muco-cutaneous (Epidermolysis bullosa (EB)), autoimmune multisystemic rheumatic diseases (Sjögren´s syndrome (SjS), systemic Lupus erythematosus (sLE), or systemic Sclerosis (sSc)). Systematic literature review (PubMed/Medline, Embase) using MESH and search term combinations, published between 1980 and August 2018 in English language reporting on dental implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with oLp, Pe, EB, SjS, sLE, sSc, study design, age, gender, follow-up period (? 12 months), implant survival rate. Implant-related weighed mean values of implant survival rate (wmSR) were calculated. After a mean follow-up period (mfp) of 44.6 months, a wmSR of 98.3 % was calculated from data published for patients with oLp (100 patients with 302 implants). Data of 27 patients (152 implants) with EB revealed wmSR of 98.7 % following mfp of 32.6 months. For 71 patients (272 implants) with SjS, wmSR was 94.2 % following a mfp of 45.2 months, and for 6 patients (44 implants) with sSc, wmSR was 97.7 % after mfp of 37.5 months. One case report on one patient each with Pe (two implants) as well as sLE (6 implants) showed 100 % SR following at least 24 months. Guidelines regarding implant treatment of patients with oLp, Pe, EB, SjS, sLE or sSc do not exist nor are contraindicating conditions defined. Implant survival rates of patients affected are comparable to those of healthy patients. For implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with Pe and sLE no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of sufficient clinical data. Implant-prosthetic treatment guidelines regarding healthy patients should be strictly followed, but frequent recall is recommended in patients affected with oLp, SjS, EB, SSc, Pe or sLE

[Oral medicine: a specialty placed between medicine and dentistry]

Oral medicine is a dental specialty that bridges the traditional areas of health between dentistry and medicine. International descriptions reflect this and oral medicine is defined as "the dental speciality placed at the interface between medicine and dentistry and is concerned with the diagnosis and management of (non-dental) pathology affecting the oral and maxillofacial region." Oral medicine specialists provide clinical care to patients with a wide variety of orofacial conditions, including oral mucosal diseases, orofacial pain syndromes, salivary gland disorders, and oral manifestations of systemic diseases. There is a growing need to implement this specialty globally: due to the rapid progress in both medicine and dentistry, and to the growing percentage of senior citizens in many countries, the adequate diagnosis and treatment of oral diseases will become even more complex in the future. In this article, the authors' intention is to point out that oral medicine is neither a recognized specialty nor a distinct field of study in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland; thus, the need for postgraduate training in this field in countries where oral medicine is not a specialization is emphasized

Comparative evaluation of three antifungal susceptibility test methods for Candida albicans isolates and correlation with response to fluconazole therapy.

In vitro susceptibilities were determined for 56 Candida albicans isolates obtained from the oral cavities of 41 patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. The agents tested included fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, flucytosine, and amphotericin B. MICs were determined by the broth microdilution technique following National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards document M27-P (M27-P micro), a broth microdilution technique using high-resolution medium (HR micro), and the Etest with solidified yeast-nitrogen base agar. The in vitro findings were correlated with in vivo response to fluconazole therapy for oropharyngeal candidiasis. For all C. albicans isolates from patients with oropharyngeal candidiasis not responding to fluconazole MICs were found to be > or = 6.25 micrograms/ml by the M27-P micro method and > or = 25 micrograms/ml by the HR micro method as well as the Etest. However, for several C. albicans isolates from patients who responded to fluconazole therapy MICs found to be above the suggested breakpoints of resistance. The appropriate rank order of best agreement between the M27-P micro method and HR micro method was amphotericin B > fluconazole > flucytosine > ketoconazole > itraconazole. The appropriate rank order with best agreement between the M27-P micro method and the Etest was flucytosine > amphotericin B > fluconazole > ketoconazole > or = itraconazole. It could be concluded that a good correlation between in vitro resistance and clinical failure was found with all methods. However, the test methods used in this study did not necessarily predict clinical response to therapy with fluconazole

Oral medicine in German-speaking countries

Link_to_subscribed_fulltex