The objective was to evaluate the association of the immunoexpression of cancer stem cell (CSC) markers with clinicopathological and survival outcomes in tongue squamous cell carcinoma (TSCC) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis [PROSPERO (CRD42021226791)] included observational studies that compared the association of clinicopathological and survival outcomes with CSC immunoexpression in TSCC patients. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as outcome measures. Six studies identified the association with three surface markers (c-MET, STAT3, CD44) and four transcription markers (NANOG, OCT4, BMI, SOX2). The odds of early-stage presentation were 41% (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.42–0.83) and 75% (OR = 0.25; 95% CI 0.14–0.45) lower in CSC and SOX2 immuno-positive cases than immuno-negative cases, respectively. The odds of well-differentiated tumors in transcription marker immuno-positive cases were 45% lower compared to immuno-negative cases (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.96). The odds of positive lymph nodes were 2.01 times higher in CSC immuno-positive cases compared to immuno-negative cases (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.11–3.65). Mortality in immuno-positive cases was 121% higher than that in immuno-negative cases (HR = 2.21; 95% CI 1.16–4.21). Advanced tumor staging and grading, lymph node metastasis, and mortality were significantly associated with positive immunoexpression of CSC markers.

The objective of the study was to compare the expression of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers of oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) (non-transformed group) to those of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) transformed from OSMF (transformed group). The search for comparative cross-sectional studies was carried out in PubMed and Scopus abiding to the PICO criteria, where expression of IHC markers in OSMF were compared with that of OSCC transformed from OSMF. The cellular distribution, number of positive cases, staining intensity, and mean immunoreactive score (IRS) of each IHC marker were evaluated in both groups. A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, in which immunoexpression of 15 epithelial and 4 connective tissue biomarkers were evaluated. Expression of β1-integrin, OCT-3, CD1a, CD207, survivin, Dickkopf-1, COX-2, hTERT, CTGF, MDM2, Ki-67, and α-SMA were increased during transformation of OSMF to OSCC. Conversely, expression of PTEN and lysyl oxidase decreased during transformation of OSMF to OSCC. Expression of a group of epithelial markers, such as COX2, hTERT, CTGF, survivin, MDM2, and p53, was 38 times lower in the non-transformed group cases compared to transformed group cases (95% CI: 58% to 10%; p = 0.01; and I2 = 90%). Meta-analysis of all markers involved in cell metabolism/apoptosis, which included β1-integrin along with the above markers also suggested 42 times lower expression in the non-transformed group as compared to the transformed group (95% CI: 58% to 10%; p = 0.01; and I2 = 90%). Sub-group analyses on cytoplasmic and nuclear epithelial markers were inconclusive. Meta-analysis of connective tissue markers was also inconclusive. No publication bias was found. Instead of delving into numerous markers without a strong basis for their use, it is advisable to further study the markers identified in this study to explore their clinical utility.

Aims: To determine the knowledge, attitude and practice of the use of nanoparticles amongst health care professionals for treating oral cancer patients. Also, to understand the indications and contraindications of nanoparticles in treating oral cancer patients. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was executed amongst dental surgeons practising with undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. A Google questionnaire form was developed and distributed, and 102 authentic entries were short-listed. Data obtained from the study were recorded in Microsoft Excel 2007 version, and SPSS version 18.0 was used. Calculation of statistical analysis like mean and standard deviation and analysis between variations was done using student t-tests, and the association between variables was determined using Chi-square. A value was found significant when the p-value was less than 0.05. Result: Many practitioners have been using nanoparticles prepared by using nanobiotechnology for the last 2-4 years. 92.9% of participants are well conversant with nanoparticles in treating oral cancer patients, out of which 88% are willing to specify therapeutic medicaments prepared using nano-biotechnology for oral cancer patients. 94.9% of the dentists are accepting to the fact that nanomedicine can also be used in combination therapy for treating patients, and 98% stated that the use of nanotechnology for diagnosing as well as treating patients will not only be advantageous but will also be the new face of cancer management shortly. Conclusion: Lack of awareness, increased tobacco consumption, and late diagnosis are the prime concerns about increasing oral cancer cases and decreased prognosis. Nanoparticles having a small particulate size will be able to detect the changes on the surface and the cellular levels and inside the cells. Similarly, in the case of therapeutic use, nanoparticles are highly efficient in delivering drugs to the systemic circulation by reducing the drug’s immunogenicity by releasing the drug in an environmentally responsive dose, thus lowering the frequency of administration and systemic toxicity.

Ameloblastic carcinoma is a rare malignant odontogenic neoplasm that exhibits diverse clinical and radiological presentations. In fact there are several differential diagnoses during histopathological evaluation too. Lack of adequate reports could not establish the predominant demographic, clinical and radiological presentations. For the same reasons, the role of adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is also unsubstantiated yet. This case discusses the innocuous clinical and radiological presentation of ameloblastic carcinoma in a 55-year-old man where the diagnostic confirmation was achieved through histopathological evaluation. The differential diagnoses, treatment and follow-up details of this case are discussed in light of the previous published case reports and systematic reviews of case reports in an attempt to increase the sensitisation among dentists towards ameloblastic carcinoma.