Toshihiro Motoi1, Takahiko Oho2. 1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan. 2. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan. oho@dent.kagoshima-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: During head and neck radiotherapy, backscatter from metallic dental restorations (MDRs) causes oral mucositis. Currently, two MDR handling methods are used: the replacement of MDRs with provisional restorations (MDR removal) and fabrication of dental spacers before radiotherapy. We compared the effects of these two methods on the incidence of oral mucositis during head and neck radiotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled 76 patients with MDRs who underwent radiotherapy for head and neck cancer between April 2016 and March 2020. We set grade 2 oral mucositis as an outcome. After adjustment of all covariates using the propensity score (PS), we analyzed the data using a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed by stratifying the data into quintiles based on the PS. RESULTS: For the incidence of grade 2 oral mucositis due to head and neck radiotherapy, the hazard ratio for the MDR removal group relative to the dental spacer group was 0.344 (95% confidence interval, 0.121-0.980; P = 0.046). Subgroup analysis showed that the hazard ratio for the MDR removal group was 0.339 (95% confidence interval, 0.122-0.943; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that MDR replacement is superior to dental spacer fabrication in reducing the incidence of oral mucositis during head and neck radiotherapy, although MDR removal carries several associated risks.
PURPOSE: During head and neck radiotherapy, backscatter from metallic dental restorations (MDRs) causes oral mucositis. Currently, two MDR handling methods are used: the replacement of MDRs with provisional restorations (MDR removal) and fabrication of dental spacers before radiotherapy. We compared the effects of these two methods on the incidence of oral mucositis during head and neck radiotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled 76 patients with MDRs who underwent radiotherapy for head and neck cancer between April 2016 and March 2020. We set grade 2 oral mucositis as an outcome. After adjustment of all covariates using the propensity score (PS), we analyzed the data using a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed by stratifying the data into quintiles based on the PS. RESULTS: For the incidence of grade 2 oral mucositis due to head and neck radiotherapy, the hazard ratio for the MDR removal group relative to the dental spacer group was 0.344 (95% confidence interval, 0.121-0.980; P = 0.046). Subgroup analysis showed that the hazard ratio for the MDR removal group was 0.339 (95% confidence interval, 0.122-0.943; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that MDR replacement is superior to dental spacer fabrication in reducing the incidence of oral mucositis during head and neck radiotherapy, although MDR removal carries several associated risks.
Authors: Theodore V Tso; Martina Hurwitz; Danielle N Margalit; Sang J Lee; Christopher L Williams; Evan B Rosen Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 3.426
Authors: Merav A Ben-David; Maximiliano Diamante; Jeffrey D Radawski; Karen A Vineberg; Cynthia Stroup; Carol-Anne Murdoch-Kinch; Samuel R Zwetchkenbaum; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; Mark Chambers; Scott B Cantor; Ellen Manzullo; Edward B Rubenstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andy Trotti; Lisa A Bellm; Joel B Epstein; Diana Frame; Henry J Fuchs; Clement K Gwede; Eugene Komaroff; Luba Nalysnyk; Marya D Zilberberg Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Linda S Elting; Catherine D Cooksley; Mark S Chambers; Adam S Garden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David W H Chin; Nathaniel Treister; Bernard Friedland; Robert A Cormack; Roy B Tishler; G Mike Makrigiorgos; Laurence E Court Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 2.102