ABSTRACT
Background@#Not so many reports about the association between head and neck cancer (HNC) and oral health status related to periodontitis (OHS-P) has been published in different countries with different methods. So, there is a need for an extensive meta-analysis with the total articles published until 2020. Hence, this study aimed to estimate the association between HNC and OHS-P through a meta-analysis. @*Methods@#Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines, 22 studies were selected through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Metaanalysis using them was performed to evaluate the association. The risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. @*Results@#Since heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001), we adopted the random effect model for 22 studies. Those with bad OHS-P, compared to those with good OHS-P, were more likely to have the risk of HNC by 2.4 times (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88–3.13) for random effect model. The association included publication bias (Egger's regression, P value < 0.001). The association among five studies (I2 = 39%, P = 0.16) using alveolar bone loss (ABL) or clinical attachment level (CAL) for assessing periodontitis increased to OR of 3.85 (CI, 3.04–4.88) in the fixed effect model without publication bias (Egger's regression, P = 0.66). Moreover, the association was higher in 10 fair or good NOS studies (OR, 3.08) and in 7 Asian studies (OR, 2.68), which were from the fixed model without publication bias. @*Conclusion@#Our meta-analysis showed that bad OHS-P was associated with the risk of HNC.The association was stronger in studies using ABL or CAL for assessing periodontitis.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Not so many reports about the association between head and neck cancer (HNC) and oral health status related to periodontitis (OHS-P) has been published in different countries with different methods. So, there is a need for an extensive meta-analysis with the total articles published until 2020. Hence, this study aimed to estimate the association between HNC and OHS-P through a meta-analysis. @*Methods@#Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines, 22 studies were selected through PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Metaanalysis using them was performed to evaluate the association. The risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. @*Results@#Since heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001), we adopted the random effect model for 22 studies. Those with bad OHS-P, compared to those with good OHS-P, were more likely to have the risk of HNC by 2.4 times (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88–3.13) for random effect model. The association included publication bias (Egger's regression, P value < 0.001). The association among five studies (I2 = 39%, P = 0.16) using alveolar bone loss (ABL) or clinical attachment level (CAL) for assessing periodontitis increased to OR of 3.85 (CI, 3.04–4.88) in the fixed effect model without publication bias (Egger's regression, P = 0.66). Moreover, the association was higher in 10 fair or good NOS studies (OR, 3.08) and in 7 Asian studies (OR, 2.68), which were from the fixed model without publication bias. @*Conclusion@#Our meta-analysis showed that bad OHS-P was associated with the risk of HNC.The association was stronger in studies using ABL or CAL for assessing periodontitis.