Search

Oral cancer considered one of the most 10 cancer among world population [1]. In the period between 1995- 2015 Saudi cancers registries detect 172,424 cancer cases, 3184 were oral cancer cases. 1.5 Per 100000 for female population and 1.4 per 100000 among male population, the majority of cases are from jazan region [2, 3]. The aim of this review is to explain the basic and essential aspects of oral cancer focusing on squamous cell carcinoma , starting from its definition to epidemiology in Saudi Arabia as well world wild as well addressing carcinogenesis , potential malignant diseases , and premalignant lesions. As oral cancer is preventable disease, prevention will be addressed as well.

Selection of instruments is important to prevent any complications such as ledge formation and instrument breakage. The main drawback linked with instrumentation is smear layer formation.This study was done for comparison of manual hand file, rotary ProTaper Ni-Ti, erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser, ultrasound, and CanalBrush (CB) methods for smear layer removal.Sixty freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular first premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment purpose were selected and classified into six groups. Group I was negative control in which no final agitation of irrigant was performed. In Group II, solution activation was performed with ProTaper Universal System, in Group III, solution activation was done with canal brush, in Group IV, ultrasound activation was done, in Group V, solution agitation was performed with Er:YAG laser agitation, and in Group VI, canal preparation with hand files was performed. Smear layer score was evaluated after canal preparation with each method.Score 1 was seen in 3 (30%) in Group IV and 6 (60%) in Group V, score 2 was seen in 3 (30%) in Group I, 8 (80%) in Group II, 7 (70%) in Group III, 5 (50%) in Group IV, 3 (30%) in Group V, and 4 (40%) in Group VI. Score 3 was observed in 7 (70%) in Group I, 2 (20%) in Group II, 3 (70%) in Group III, 2 (20%) in Group IV, 1 (10%) in Group V, and 6 (60%) in Group VI. A statistically significant difference was found in smear layer removal score in all groups (P0.05) except between Group I versus VI (P0.05).Complete removal of the smear layer was not observed in any of the methods used in the study; however, Er: YAG laser was found to be better as compared to other methods.

It is hypothesised the peri-implant soft-tissue inflammatory parameters (plaque index [PI], gingival index [GI], and probing depth [PD]) are poorer and crestal bone loss (CBL) higher around dental implants placed in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)-users than controls (individuals that had never consumed any form of tobacco). The aim of this study was to assess the peri-implant clinicoradiographic parameters among non-smokers and individuals using ENDS at 8 years of follow-up.Self-reported non-smokers and individuals habitually using ENDS were included. A questionnaire was used to gather information about age in years, sex (female or male), daily frequency and duration of use of ENDS, family history of smoking and/or vaping, daily toothbrushing and flossing and most recent visit to a dentist or dental hygienist. These patients were evaluated for peri-implant CBL, PD, PI, BOP. The mesial and distal CBL was measured on digital bitewing radiographs that were taken using the long-cone paralleling technique. Group comparisons were statistically assessed and the level of significance was set at p0.05.One hundred twenty-seven individuals (92 males and 35 females) were included. Sixty-three individuals (46 males and 17 females) had used ENDS for 9.2 ± 0.8 years (group 1) and 64 (46 males and 18 females) did not use any nicotinic products (group 2). The mean ages of individuals in groups 1 and 2 were 34.2 ± 1.3 and 35.1 ± 0.5 years, respectively. In all patients, platform-switched dental implants with moderately rough surfaces were placed at bone level using an insertion torque of 30--35 Ncm. In both groups, implants had a diameter of 4.1 mm and the lengths ranged between 11 and 14 mm. In groups 1 and 2, implants were in function for 8.8 ± 0.4 and 8.5 ± 0.2 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mPI, mBoP, PD, and mesial and distal CBL around implants in groups 1 and 2 at 8 years of follow-up.Dental implants can demonstrate stable clinicoradiographic status and can remain functionally stable in non-smokers and ENDS users, provided that strict home oral hygiene measures are adopted.

The aim of the present 10-year follow-up study was to assess the survival rate of cement- and screw-retained restorations on dental implants placed in grafted sites.Patients with cement- (group 1) and screw-retained (group 2) restorations on implants placed in grafted sites and patients with cement- (group 3) and screw-retained (group 4) restorations on implants placed in non-grafted sites were included. Demographic data was recorded using a questionnaire, and information regarding implant dimensions, surface characteristics, insertion torque, type of bone graft used, jaw location and duration of implants in function was retrieved from patients' records. These patients were evaluated for peri-implant crestal bone loss (CBL), probing depth (PD), modified plaque index (mPI), and modified bleeding on probing (mBOP). p0.05 was considered statistically significant.Eighty-eight partially edentulous individuals (n = 22 in each group) were included. The mean ages of individuals in all groups were comparable in all groups. In each patient, 1 bone-level platform-switched dental implant with moderately rough surfaces was placed using an insertion torque of 30-35 Ncm. In all groups, the length and diameter of implants ranged between 11-14 mm and 4.1-5 mm, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mPI, mBoP, PD, and mesial and distal CBR around implants in any of the groups. Bone-level implants restored with cement and screw-retained restorations can possess a stable clinicoradiographic status and remain functional in grafted and non-grafted sites, provided strict domestic oral hygiene measures are adopted and routine dental prophylaxis is carried out by oral healthcare providers.