Search

During prosthetic rehabilitation after tumor therapy in the head and neck region, the dentist must assess whether the prognosis of the remaining teeth is sufficiently good or whether implants should be used to anchor dentures. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the survival rate of teeth and implants after and to evaluate factors potentially influencing implant survival. One hundred fifteen patients (male: 70.3%; mean age: 63.2 12.4 years) having received dental treatment before and after at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg were enrolled in the study. Clinical examination including assessment of dental status and stimulated salivary flow rate was performed. Information about disease progression and therapy was retrieved from medical records. After from a total of 1262 teeth, 27.2% had to be extracted. Of 308 implants inserted after 7.0% were lost. Teeth exhibited lower 5-year survival probability (76.8%) than implants (89.9%; p = 0.001). The risk of loss (RL) of implants increased with age, nicotine use, intraoral defects, and RCT. Radiotherapy did not independently increase the RL. Thus, implants seem to be a reliable treatment option in case of progressive tooth decay after, particularly after RT.

We aimed to evaluate possible factors influencing the long-term survival of teeth after tumor therapy to the head and neck region with and without radiation. Between January 2019 and January 2020, patients who underwent for head and neck cancer and received dental treatment before and after at the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry of the Martin Luther University Halle- Wittenberg were enrolled in the study. Clinical examination with assessment of dental status and stimulated salivary flow rate (SFR) was performed and information about disease progression and therapy was retrieved from medical records. Of 118 patients (male: 70.3%; mean age: 63.2 12.4 years), 95 received radiotherapy (RT), and 47 were administered radio-chemotherapy (RCT). The teeth of irradiated patients exhibited a lower 5-year survival probability (74.2%) than those of nonirradiated patients (89.4%). The risk of loss (RL) after RT increased with nicotine use, presence of intraoral defects, reduced SFR, RCT and regarding mandibular teeth, and decreased with crowning following. Lower SFR increased the RL even without RT. Consideration of patient’s treatment history, individual risk profile, and clinical findings during the prosthetic planning phase could enable earlier, more targeted dental treatment after (e.g., timely crowning).

Helene Bacher,1 Ramona Schweyen,1 Dirk Vordermark,2 Bernd Leplow,3 Jeremias Hey1 1Department of Dental Prosthetics, University Hospital Halle/Saale, Halle (Saale), Germany; 2Clinic for Radiotherapy, University Hospital Halle/Saale, Halle (Saale), Germany; 3Institute of Psychology,Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), GermanyCorrespondence: Helene BacherUniversitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Zahnärztliche Prothetik, Magdeburger Str. 16, Halle (Saale) 06112, GermanyTel +49 345 557 3777Fax +49 345 557 3779Email helene.mueller@uk-halle.dePurpose: The aim of the study was to develop an optimally designed and comprehensibly formulated patient information leaflet (PIL) to improve patients’ memory of information provided by physicians during a radiotherapy (head and neck area) consultation. This PIL was tested on unaffected probands for its usefulness in clinical practice.Patients and Methods: A panel of experts compiled the main topics using Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Flesch’s Reading Ease Score (FRE) and the Baker Able Leaflet Design (BALD) index were adapted to appropriate values to determine text comprehensibility and graphic design. The evaluation involving unaffected participants (231 men, 380 women, 21 not specified; mean age = 32 ± 13.63 years, range = 18– 79 years) was conducted based on three questionnaires for four groups of respondents with varying prior knowledge of the subject. When answering the questionnaires, only half the participants had access to the PIL.Results: The expert panel included 59 out of 75 proposed topics. After reformulations, the FRE was adjusted from 38.5 to 51.4. The BALD index ranged from 24 to 26, depending on the printout edition. The evaluation of 632 unaffected participants indicated a difference in the correctly answered items that ranged from 2.86% to 30.76% between participants with an

Helene Bacher,1 Ramona Schweyen,1 Thomas Kuhnt,2 Bernd Leplow,3 Jeremias Hey1 1Department of Dental Prosthetics, University Hospital Halle/Saale, Halle (Saale), Germany; 2Clinic for Radiotherapy, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; 3Institute of Psychology, Institute for Therapy and Health Research (IFT-Nord), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, GermanyCorrespondence: Helene BacherDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, University Hospital Halle/Saale, Magdeburger Straße 16, Halle (Saale) 06112, GermanyTel +49 345 557 3787Fax +49 345 557 3779Email helene.mueller@uk-halle.dePurpose: A patient information leaflet (PIL) on oral and dental care during radiotherapy was tested whether and at which time during therapy it would be helpful to increase the knowledge about the therapy and the resulting side effects and the management of these. Additionally, the participants’ subjective perception of being well informed about the topic was examined.Participants and Methods: Surveys were conducted in August 2018–April 2019, at the University Hospitals Halle and Leipzig (Germany). The study population consisted of patients who were treated with radiotherapy in the head and neck region. Half of them received access to the PIL. The survey was conducted with three different versions of a printout questionnaire, which covered the relevant topics at three different times of therapy. The time the participants were surveyed depended on the time of their first therapy appointment. The items of the questionnaires tested their concrete knowledge and assessed the subjective perception of the level of information received.Results: Of the 81 participants who received the PIL, 93.8% read it and 92.1% of them considered it helpful. The sample comprised 181 participants aged 32 to 85 years (M = 62.9), of which 135 were males, 42 were females, and 4 were unspecified. Evaluation showed a difference of 4.7%; 18.5%; and 13.6% in correct answers