Vitor T Stuani1, Cassia M F Rubira2, Adriana C P Sant'Ana1, Paulo S S Santos2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Discipline of Periodontology, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo - Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Surgery, Stomatology, Pathology, and Radiology, Discipline of Stomatology, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo - Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) survival rate is influenced by the fact that diagnoses occur mostly in late stages of the disease. Thus, there is a clear contribution in the early findings, making the use of minimally invasive techniques for diagnosis, such as analysis of salivary markers, interesting tools. METHODS: A systematic review was performed with all studies that establish a comparison between the levels of saliva-based markers found in patients with OSCC compared with cancer-free individuals. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. Of them, only 12 showed some caution with oral conditions before sample collection. A wide range of potential markers was evaluated; however, the comparison between studies was impaired because each marker was hardly explored by more than 1 article. CONCLUSION: The lack of methodological criteria within studies and the absence of consensus on marker choice are obstacles for future researches.
BACKGROUND: The oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) survival rate is influenced by the fact that diagnoses occur mostly in late stages of the disease. Thus, there is a clear contribution in the early findings, making the use of minimally invasive techniques for diagnosis, such as analysis of salivary markers, interesting tools. METHODS: A systematic review was performed with all studies that establish a comparison between the levels of saliva-based markers found in patients with OSCC compared with cancer-free individuals. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. Of them, only 12 showed some caution with oral conditions before sample collection. A wide range of potential markers was evaluated; however, the comparison between studies was impaired because each marker was hardly explored by more than 1 article. CONCLUSION: The lack of methodological criteria within studies and the absence of consensus on marker choice are obstacles for future researches.