ABSTRACT
Background: Oral-functioning impairment can negatively affect the quality of life (QoL) of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients after receiving radiotherapy (RT). Assessment of patient-reported oral functioning throughout treatment can improve patient care. This scoping review aims to propose a definition for oral functioning for HNC patients and to map out the available questionnaires measuring patient-reported oral functioning in RT-treated HNC patients. Methods: A literature search in relevant databases was performed. Each questionnaire was scored on the domains validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Furthermore, the items from the questionnaires were analyzed to define the common denominators for oral functioning in HNC patients. Results: Of the 6434 articles assessed, 16 met the inclusion criteria and employed 16 distinct instruments to evaluate QoL. No questionnaire covered all oral-health-related QoL items nor assessed all aspects of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Chewing, speaking, and swallowing were the common denominators for oral functioning. Conclusions: Based on the included studies, we suggest using the VHNSS 2.0 questionnaire to assess oral functioning in HNC patients. Furthermore, we suggest to more clearly define oral functioning in HNC patients by focusing on masticatory function (chewing and grinding), mouth opening, swallowing, speaking, and salivation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: In this cadaveric study, the accuracy of CAS guided mandibular and maxillary reconstruction including immediate dental implant placement in different Brown defect classes is assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The virtual planning and surgical procedure was conducted according to a newly proposed Amsterdam UMC reconstruction protocol. Postoperative evaluation was performed according to a previously proposed evaluation guideline. RESULTS: Fourteen mandibular and 6 maxillary reconstructions were performed. Average mandibular angle deviations were 1.52°±1.32, 1.85°±1.58, 1.37°±1.09, 1.78°±1.37, 2.43°±1.52 and 2.83°±2.37, respectively for the left and right axial angles, left and right coronal angles and left and right sagittal angles. A total of 62 dental implants were placed in neomandibles with an average dXYZ values of 3.68 ± 2.21 mm and 16 in neomaxillas with an average dXYZ values of 3.24 ± 1.7 mm. CONCLUSION: Promising levels of accuracy were achieved for all mandibular angles. Dental implant positions approached the preoperative preferred positions well, within the margin to manufacture prosthetic devices.
