Search

BackgroundOral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common manifestation of malignancy in the oral cavity. Adjuncts are available for clinicians to evaluate lesions that seem potentially malignant. In this systematic review, the authors summarized the available evidence on patient-important outcomes, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), and patients' values and preferences (PVPs) when using adjuncts for the evaluation of clinically evident lesions in the oral cavity.Types of studies reviewedThe authors searched for preexisting systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool. The authors updated the selected reviews and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and DTA and PVPs studies. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsThe authors identified 4 existing reviews. DTA reviews included 37 studies. The authors retrieved 7,534 records, of which 9 DTA and 10 PVPs studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of adjuncts ranged from 0.39 to 0.96 for the evaluation of innocuous lesions and from 0.31 to 0.95 for the evaluation of suspicious lesions. Cytologic testing used in suspicious lesions appears to have the highest accuracy among adjuncts (sensitivity, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; specificity, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.99; low-quality evidence).Conclusions and practical implicationsCytologic testing appears to be the most accurate adjunct among those included in this review. The main concerns are the high rate of false-positive results and serious issues of risk of bias and indirectness of the evidence. Clinicians should remain skeptical about the potential benefit of any adjunct in clinical practice.

In response to the increasing incidence of certain oral and oropharyngeal cancers, the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM) calls on healthcare providers and legislators to expand awareness of oral and oropharyngeal cancer risk factors, increase early detection, and support policies that increase utilization of dental services. SBM supports the American Dental Association's 2017 guideline for evaluating potentially malignant oral cavity disorders and makes the following recommendations to healthcare providers and legislators. We encourage healthcare providers and healthcare systems to treat oral exams as a routine part of patient examination; communicate to patients about oral/oropharyngeal cancers and risk factors; encourage HPV vaccination for appropriate patients based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; support avoidance of tobacco use and reduction of alcohol consumption; and follow the current recommendations for evaluating potentially malignant oral cavity lesions. Because greater evidence is needed to inform practice guidelines in the primary care setting, we call for more research in collaborative health and dental services. We encourage legislators to support policies that expand Medicaid to cover adult dental services, increase Medicaid reimbursement for dental services, and require dental care under any modification of, or replacement of, the Affordable Care Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations to inform primary care clinicians about the potential use of adjuncts as triage tools for the evaluation of lesions, including potentially malignant disorders (PMDs), in the oral cavity. Types of Studies Reviewed. This is an update of the ADA's 2010 recommendations on the early diagnosis of PMDs and oral squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conducted a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and diagnostic test accuracy studies. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. Results. The panel formulated 1 good practice statement and 6 clinical recommendations that concluded that no available adjuncts demonstrated sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to support their routine use as triage tools during the evaluation of lesions in the oral cavity. For patients seeking care for suspicious lesions, immediate performance of a biopsy or referral to a specialist remains the single most important recommendation for clinical practice. In exceptional cases, when patients decline a biopsy or live in rural areas with limited access to care, the panel suggested that cytologic testing may be used to initiate the diagnostic process until a biopsy can be performed (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence). Conclusions and Practical Implications. The authors urge clinicians to remain alert and take diligent action when they identify a PMD. The authors emphasize the need for counseling because patients may delay diagnosis because of anxiety and denial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012 data indicated that, in the United States, nearly onefourth of children and over one-half of adolescents experienced dental caries in their permanent teeth. The purpose of this review was to summarize the available clinical evidence regarding the effect of dental sealants for the prevention and management of pit-and-fissure occlusal carious lesions in primary and permanent molars, compared with a control without sealants, with fluoride varnishes, or with other head-to head comparisons., Type of Studies Reviewed: The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials that included at least 2 years of follow-up, which they identified using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and registers of ongoing trials. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and quality of the evidence assessments by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Of 2,869 records screened, the authors determined that 24 articles (representing 23 studies) proved eligible. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that participants who received sealants had a reduced risk of developing carious lesions in occlusal surfaces of permanent molars compared with those who did not receive sealants (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.27) after 7 or more years of follow-up. When the authors compared studies whose investigators had compared sealants with fluoride varnishes, they found that sealants reduced the incidence of carious lesions after 7 or more years of follow-up (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.51); however, this finding was supported by low-quality evidence. On the basis of the evidence, the authors could not provide a hierarchy of effectiveness among the studies whose investigators had conducted head-to-head comparisons. The investigators of 2 trials provided information about adverse events, but they did not report any adverse events., Conclusions and Practical Implications: Available evidence suggests that sealants are effective and safe to prevent or arrest the progression of noncavitated carious lesions compared with a control without sealants or fluoride varnishes. Further research is needed to provide information about the relative merits of the different types of sealant materials.