Evaluation of chemiluminescence, toluidine blue and histopathology for detection of high risk oral precancerous lesions: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Early detection holds the key to an effective control of cancers in general and of oral cancers in particular. However, screening procedures for oral cancer are not straightforward due to procedural requirements as well as feasibility issues, especially in resource-limited countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study to compare the performance of chemiluminescence, toluidine blue and histopathology for detection of high-risk precancerous oral lesions. We evaluated 99 lesions from 55 patients who underwent chemiluminescence and toluidine blue tests along with biopsy and histopathological examination. We studied inter-as well as intra-rater agreement in the histopathological evaluation and then using latent class modeling, we estimated the operating characteristics of these tests in the absence of a reference standard test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a weak inter-rater agreement (kappa < 0.15) as well as a weak intra-rater reproducibility (Pearson's r = 0.28, intra-class correlation rho = 0.03) in the histopathological evaluation of potentially high-risk precancerous lesions. When compared to histopathology, chemiluminescence and toluidine blue retention had a sensitivity of 1.00 and 0.59, respectively and a specificity of 0.01 and 0.79, respectively. However, latent class analysis indicated a low sensitivity (0.37) and high specificity (0.90) of histopathological evaluation. Toluidine blue had a near perfect high sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-risk lesions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our study, there was variability in the histopathological evaluation of oral precancerous lesions. Our results indicate that toluidine blue retention test may be better suited than chemiluminescence to detect high-risk oral precancerous lesions in a high-prevalence and low-resource setting like India.</p

Salivary Markers for Oral Cancer Detection

Oral cancer refers to all malignancies that arise in the oral cavity, lips and pharynx, with 90% of all oral cancers being oral squamous cell carcinoma. Despite the recent treatment advances, oral cancer is reported as having one of the highest mortality ratios amongst other malignancies and this can much be attributed to the late diagnosis of the disease. Saliva has long been tested as a valuable tool for drug monitoring and the diagnosis systemic diseases among which oral cancer. The new emerging technologies in molecular biology have enabled the discovery of new molecular markers (DNA, RNA and protein markers) for oral cancer diagnosis and surveillance which are discussed in the current review

Systematic review on the association between genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between specific genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications in patients having a follow-up period of at least 12-months post-loading. Material and methods A sensitive search strategy was developed to identify implant-related genetic-association studies. This was performed by searching five databases. A three-stage screening (titles, abstract, full text) was carried out in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Assessment was carried out according to the suggested scale for quality assessment of periodontal genetic-association studies and adapted to genetic analyses of implant-related studies leading to an overall final score 0-20 based on the summation of positive answers. Results The initial search resulted in 1838 articles. Sixty-seven full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and four studies met the defined inclusion criteria. IL-6 G174C, TNF-alpha -308, IL-1A-889 and IL-1B+3954 and CD14-159 C/T polymorphisms were evaluated. The quality assessment scores ranged from 6 to 11 positive answers from out of a maximum score of 20. The great heterogeneity among the studies did not allow a meta-analysis. Conclusions The published evidence on genetic predisposition and implant biologic complications is limited. The small number of identified studies evaluating the association between genetic polymorphisms and peri-implant disease presented methodological and reporting inadequacies. Thus, the potential link between genetic polymorphisms and biological complications should be further investigated and clarified through well-designed clinical studies on adequately powered and appropriately included study populations

Systematic review on the association between genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between specific genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications in patients having a follow-up period of at least 12-months post-loading. Material and methods: A sensitive search strategy was developed to identify implant-related genetic-association studies. This was performed by searching five databases. A three-stage screening (titles, abstract, full text) was carried out in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Assessment was carried out according to the suggested scale for quality assessment of periodontal genetic-association studies and adapted to genetic analyses of implant-related studies leading to an overall final score 0–20 based on the summation of positive answers. Results: The initial search resulted in 1838 articles. Sixty-seven full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and four studies met the defined inclusion criteria. IL-6 G174C, TNF-α -308, IL-1A-889 and IL-1B+3954 and CD14-159 C/T polymorphisms were evaluated. The quality assessment scores ranged from 6 to 11 positive answers from out of a maximum score of 20. The great heterogeneity among the studies did not allow a meta-analysis. Conclusions: The published evidence on genetic predisposition and implant biologic complications is limited. The small number of identified studies evaluating the association between genetic polymorphisms and peri-implant disease presented methodological and reporting inadequacies. Thus, the potential link between genetic polymorphisms and biological complications should be further investigated and clarified through well-designed clinical studies on adequately powered and appropriately included study populations. © 2021 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd

What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review

ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to determine whether soft tissue biotype at implant placement has an influence on crestal bone loss (CBL) at 1year after implant loading

Long-term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM To investigate and compare the prevalence of biological complications and failure of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites after a mean observation period of at least 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS The focused question "In patients with osseointegrated dental implants, are there differences in biological complications and implant failure at implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites?" was addressed using the Population, Exposure, Comparison and Outcome criteria. Electronic and manual searches supplemented by the screening of the grey literature were carried out. A case definition of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis had to be specified. The binary random-effects method was chosen to conduct meta-analyses. Results are presented as Forest plots with weighted mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I statistic test was applied to quantify heterogeneity. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the parameters provided in the Cochrane Center and CONSORT statement were used for quality assessment. The results are reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS No randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing the outcomes of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites was identified. Five case-series studies, one case-control study, one cross-sectional study and one RCT were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analyses. No statistically significant differences (p > .05) were observed between implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites for any outcome variables both at patient and at implant levels, respectively. High heterogeneity concerning patient sampling, case definitions of biological complications and eligibility criteria was observed. CONCLUSION The studies included in the present systematic review did not directly address the focused questions. Hence, the outcomes of the meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to high variability with respect to study design

4 mm long vs longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial

International audiencePurpose To evaluate whether 4.0 mm short dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with xenographs in the maxilla and placement of at least 10.0 mm long implants in posterior atrophic jaws. Materials and methods A group of 40 patients with atrophic posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles with 5.0 mm to 6.0 mm bone height above the mandibular canal and 40 patients with atrophic maxillas having 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive between one and three 4.0 mm long implants or one to three implants of at least 10.0 mm long in augmented bone, at two centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 mm or 4.5 mm. Mandibles were vertically augmented with inter-positional equine bone blocks and resorbable barriers. Implants were placed 4 months after the inter-positional grafting. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers, and implants were placed simultaneously. Implants were not submerged and were loaded after 4 months with provisional screw-retained reinforced acrylic restorations replaced after another 4 months by definitive screw-retained metal-composite prostheses. Patients were followed up to 1 year post-loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complication, and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. Results Three patients dropped out; one from the maxillary augmented group, one from the mandibular augmented group, and one from the maxillary short implant group. In six augmented mandibles (30%) it was not possible to place implants of at least 10.0 mm, so shorter implants were placed instead. In mandibles, one implant from the augmented group failed vs two 4.0 mm implants in two patients from the short implant group. In maxillae, three short implants failed in two patients vs seven long implants in four patients (two long implants and one short implant dropped into the maxillary sinus). Two prostheses on short implants (one mandibular and one maxillary) were placed at a later stage because of implant failures, vs six prostheses (one mandibular and five maxillary) at augmented sites (one mandibular prosthesis not delivered, three maxillary prostheses delivered with delays, one not delivered, and one failed) at augmented sites. In particular, three patients in the augmented group (one mandible and two maxillae) were not wearing a prosthesis. There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures (P (chi-square test) = 0.693; difference in proportion = 0.03; CI 95% -0.11 to 0.17) or prostheses failures (P (chi-square test) = 0.126; difference in proportion = 0.10; CI 95% -0.03 to 0.24). At mandibular sites, nine augmented patients were affected by complications vs two patients treated with short implants (P (chi-square test) = 0.01; difference in proportion = 0.37; CI 95% 0.11 to 0.63), the difference being statistically significant. No significant differences were found for maxillae nine sinus-lifted patients vs four short implant patients were affected by complications (P (chi-square test) = 0.091; difference in proportion = 0.25; CI 95% -0.03 to 0.53). At 1-year post-loading, average peri-implant bone loss was 0.51 mm at 4 mm long mandibular implants, 0.77 mm at 10 mm or longer mandibular implants, 0.63 mm at short maxillary implants and 0.72 mm at long maxillary implants. The difference was statistically significant in mandibles (mean difference -0.26 mm, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.13, P (ANCOVA) < 0.001), but not in maxillae (mean difference -0.09 mm, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.05, P (ANCOVA) = 0.196). Conclusions One year after loading 4.0 mm long implants achieved similar results, if not better, than longer implants in augmented jaws, but were affected by fewer complications. Short implants might be a preferable choice over bone augmentation, especially in mandibles, since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper, and associated with less morbidity. However, 5 to 10 years post-loading data are necessary before making reliable recommendations. © 2002-2018 Quintessence Publishing Group