Search

Purpose: Critically review and summarise existing knowledge on prevalence of oral, dental, and craniofacial side-effects of antineoplastic treatment in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). Methods: A literature search was conducted for studies reporting on children aged 4–19 years treated for any type of malignancy up to the age of 15 years and for whom, at the time of the examination, more than 8 months have elapsed since the end of treatment. Data regarding dental late effects on teeth and craniofacial complex were collected and mean prevalence of each defect was reported. Results: From the 800 articles identified, 17 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included. A total of 983 CCS were examined, with the total number of healthy controls being 1266 children. Haematological malignancy was the most prevalent diagnosis with the age at diagnosis ranging between 0–15 years. Multiple antineoplastic protocols were implemented with the elapsed time being 8 months up to 17 years. One-third of CCS experienced at least one late effect, with corresponding value for the control group being below 25%. Among the defects identified clinically, microdontia, hypodontia and enamel developmental defects were recorded in 1/4 of CCS. Impaired root growth and agenesis were the two defects mostly recorded radiographically. The effect on dental maturity and on salivary glands was unclear. Conclusion: CCS are at risk of developing dental late effects because of their disease and its treatment and therefore, routine periodic examinations are essential to record their development and provide comprehensive oral healthcare.

Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence of dental caries and dental developmental defects (DDD) in childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and identify disease and treatment-related risk factors. Methods: CCS aged up to 21 years, diagnosed with a malignancy before the age of 10 years and in remission for at least one year were included. Data were collected from patients’ medical records and through a clinical examination where presence of dental caries and prevalence of DDD were recorded. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess possible correlations and multivariate regression analysis to determine risk factors for defect development. Results: Seventy CCS with a mean chronological age of 11.2 years at the time of examination, mean age at cancer diagnosis of 4.17 years, and a mean post-treatment follow-up time of 5.48 years were included. Mean DMFT/dmft was 1.31, with 29% of survivors presenting with at least one carious lesion. Younger patients on the day of examination and patients treated with higher radiation dose, showed significantly higher prevalence of dental caries. The prevalence of DDD was 59%, with demarcated opacities being the defect most commonly observed (40%). Age at dental examination, diagnosis, age at diagnosis, and time that have elapsed since the end of treatment were the factors significantly affecting its prevalence. Regression analysis revealed that age at examination was the only factor significantly associated with the presence of coronal defects. Conclusion: A great number of CCS presented with at least one carious lesion or a DDD, with the prevalence being significantly associated with various disease-specific characteristics, but age at dental examination the only significant predictor.

Purpose: The European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) has developed this best clinical practice guidance to help clinicians manage deep carious lesions in primary teeth. Methods: Three expert groups conducted systematic reviews of the relevant literature. The topics were: (1) conventional techniques (2) Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID) and (3) materials. Workshops were held during the corresponding EAPD interim seminar in Oslo in April 2021. Several clinical based recommendations and statements were agreed upon, and gaps in our knowledge were identified. Results: There is strong evidence that indirect pulp capping and pulpotomy techniques, and 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride are shown to be effective for the management of caries in the primary dentition. Due to the strict criteria, it is not possible to give clear recommendations on which materials are most appropriate for restoring primary teeth with deep carious lesions. Atraumatic Restorative Technique (ART) is not suitable for multi-surface caries, and Pre-formed Metal Crowns (PMCs) using the Hall technique reduce patient discomfort. GIC and RMGIC seem to be more favourable given the lower annual failure rate compared to HVGIC and MRGIC. Glass carbomer cannot be recommended due to inferior marginal adaptation and fractures. Compomers, hybrid composite resins and bulk-fill composite resins demonstrated similar values for annual failure rates. Conclusion: The management of deep carious lesions in primary teeth can be challenging and must consider the patient’s compliance, operator skills, materials and costs. There is a clear need to increase the use of MID techniques in managing carious primary teeth as a mainstream rather than a compromise option.

Objective: Even though many studies have been performed to estimate DA in general population, limited research has been performed concerning medical compromised populations such as childhood cancer survivors. The aims of this case–control study were (a) to estimate dental age in a population of children that have undergone antineoplastic treatment with three different methods and (b) to compare it with the estimates from healthy subjects (control group). Materials and methods: Seventy-three oncology patients and equal number of healthy control subjects from the Pediatric dentistry Department had their dental age estimated through recent orthopantograms using Dermijian’s, Willems’ and London Atlas methods. All OPGs randomly assessed by two calibrated observers. Mean age difference was calculated. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was used to assess intra-observer reliability and the Concordance Correlation Coefficient used to assess inter-observer reliability. Results: Concerning the CCS group 35 subjects (48%) were males and 38 (52%) were females, with an overall mean chronological age 10.95 years, ranging between 5.37 and 15.83 years. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was exceptional for all methods. Mean DA differences in both groups and were not statistically sinificant regardless of the method used. The marginally lower values when males and females were investigated separately is basically due to the corresponding reduction of the sample size. Conclusion: An overestimation of DA observed in both groups by all methods was not significant. All three methods produced highly accurate comparable results when it comes to estimate the actual chronological age in both groups (CCS and control subjects) regardless of gender.

To clinically validate the fluorescence devices, DIAGNOdent Pen™ and Vista Proof™ for the evaluation of non-cavitated white spot lesions (WSL) in orthodontic patients and using direct visual examination after the brackets removal, as the gold standard. The sample consisted of 31 patients, 13–28 years old, under fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Teeth (N = 619) were evaluated with the brackets on, after cleaning and air drying, by direct, indirect visual examination and using the DIAGNOdent Pen™ device. After debonding with direct visual examination and the Vista Proof™ device. WSL were scored with the Gorelick Index for visual examination. The fluorescence devices were validated by calculating sensitivity, specificity and accuracy while ROC curves and area under the curve were used for comparison among the examination methods. Among the different diagnostic methods, visual examination recorded the highest degree of accuracy. The performance of the fluorescence devices was poor compared with that of the visual methods for mild WSL, while for more extended lesions no difference was found. A comparison between the validity of the two devices’ showed no statistically significant difference. The validity of DIAGNOdent Pen™ and Vista Proof™ for the chairside diagnosis and quantification of non-cavitated WSL in orthodontic patients was moderate, and no better as compared to the visual diagnostic methods. The fluorescence devices performed similarly to the visual examination for more extended WSL and poorer for milder ones. Validity between the two devices did not differ.