ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative dental treatments for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC) and subjected to radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic scoping review was performed under the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The study's experimental design was registered in the Open Science Framework. In vitro studies that evaluated preventive and restorative dental treatment over 50 Gy radiation doses were included. The search was conducted in November 2023 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) without language or date restriction. A search strategy was applied based on keywords, MeSh terms, or synonyms. A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies, out of 3679 original articles identified, were included and reviewed. Of the included studies, three evaluated saliva stimulants and 35 evaluated fluoride-based preventive materials: gel (n = 18) toothpaste (n = 11) mouth rinse (n = 8) and varnish (n = 5) while 14 evaluated restorative materials: resin composite (n = 12) glass ionomer cement (n = 6) and amalgam (n = 1) Of those studies, 36 were clinical trials and 13 were in vitro studies. CONCLUSION: Fluoride gel was the most frequently recommended preventive material for preventing radiation caries with supportive clinical evidence. Resin composite and glass ionomer were the most frequently used restorative materials, respectively. However, there is not yet clinical evidence to support the use of resin composite in irradiated teeth.
Subject(s)
Dental Caries , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Humans , Dental Caries/prevention & control , Head and Neck Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study comprehensively reviewed clinical trials that investigated the effect of immediate dentin sealing (IDS) technique on postoperative sensitivity (POS) and clinical performance of indirect restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement, and was guided by the PICOS strategy. Clinical trials in which adult patients received at least one indirect restoration cemented with IDS approach and one restoration cemented following the delayed dentin sealing (DDS) were considered. RESULTS: Following title screening and full-text reading, four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis, while two studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. According to Risk of bias-2 tool, two studies were classified as "some concerns" for the outcome POS. No statistically significant differences were found between teeth restored with indirect restorations using the IDS and DDS approach for POS (p > 0.05), neither at the baseline (very low certainty of evidence according to GRADE) nor after 2 years of follow-up (low certainty of evidence according to GRADE). CONCLUSION: There is low-certainty evidence that IDS does not reduce POS in teeth restored with indirect restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There is no clinical evidence to favor IDS over DDS when restoring teeth with indirect restorations.
