The interval time between RT and implant placement and the radiation doses are not associated with significant implant failure rates. The placement of implants in irradiated bone is viable, and head and neck RT should not be considered as a contraindication for dental rehabilitation with implants. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E2229-E2240, 2016.

Radiotherapy, alone or associated with surgery or chemotherapy, produces a significant increase in cure rates for many malignancies of the head and neck region. However, high doses of radiation in large areas, including the oral mucosa, may result in several undesired reactions that manifest during or after the completion of therapy. The multidisciplinary management is the best alternative to minimize or even prevent such reactions, and the dentist has a fundamental role in this context. This paper reviews the literature related to the main oral sequelae from head and neck radiotherapy and establishes clinical oral management protocol for these irradiated patients.

ObjectivesThe aim of this work was to evaluate saliva and tongue coating pH in oral healthy patients with morning bad breath before and after use of different oral mouthrinses.Material and Methodsaliva and tongue coating pH of 50 patients allocated in 5 groups were measured respectively by a digital pHmeter and color pH indicators, before, immediately after and 30 min after rinsing 5 different mouthrinses: cetilpiridine chloride associated with sodium chloride, triclosan, enzymatic solution, essential oil and distilled water.ResultsOnly triclosan and essential oil increased salivary pH immediately after rising. The enzymatic solution decreased salivary and tongue coating pH immediately after rinsing.ConclusionSalivary pH tended to be acidic while tongue coating pH tended to be alkaline, even after rising. Triclosan and essential oil mouthrinses increased salivary pH immediately after rinsing. Enzymatic solution decreased saliva and tongue coating pH immediately after rising.

Objective This retrospective and observational study evaluated the accuracy of a 3D virtual surgical planning (VSP) for the maxillary positioning and orientation in patients undergoing bimaxillary orthognathic surgery, comparing the planned and postoperative outcomes. Setting and Sample Population Seventy consecutive patients of both sexes, who were submitted to bimaxillary orthognathic surgery between 2015 and 2019 were included in our study. Material and Methods The patients were evaluated by fusing preoperative planning and postoperative outcome using cone‐beam computed tomography scan evaluation. Three‐dimensional VSP and postoperative outcomes were compared by using three linear and three angular measurements. The main outcome interest was the difference between the VSP movement, and the surgical movement obtained. The success criterion adopted was a mean linear difference of <2 mm and a mean angular difference of <4°. Results Results were analysed using a linear mixed model with fixed and random effects, at α = .05. No significant statistical differences were found for linear and angular measurements between the planned and postsurgical outcomes (P > .05). All overlapping points presented values within the range considered clinically irrelevant (<2 mm; <1°). Conclusions Three‐dimensional VSP was executed with a high degree of accuracy. When comparing the planned and postsurgical outcomes, all overlapping points presented values within the range considered clinically irrelevant.

No abstract