Objectives:To analyze psychological profiles, pain and oral symptoms in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP).Materials and methods: 300 patients with keratotic OLP (K-OLP; reticular, papular, plaque-like subtypes), 300 patients with predominant non-keratotic OLP (nK-OLP; erythematosus atrophic, erosive, ulcerative, bullous subtypes) and 300 controls were recruited in 15 universities. The number of oral sites involved and oral symptoms were recorded. The Numeric Rating Scale

No abstract

Oral mucositis is a common and most debilitating complication associated with cancer therapy. Despite the significant clinical and economic impact of this condition, there is little to offer to patients with oral mucositis, and the medications used in its management are generally only palliative. Given that mucositis is ultimately a predictable and, therefore, potentially preventable condition, in this study we appraised the scientific literature to evaluate effective methods of prevention that have been tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Published high-level evidence shows that multiple preventative methods are potentially effective in the prevention of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both. Anti-inflammatory medications (including benzydamine), growth factors and cytokines (including palifermin), cryotherapy, laser-and-light therapy, herbal medicines and supplements, and mucoprotective agents (including oral pilocarpine) showed some degree of efficacy in preventing/reducing the severity of mucositis with most anticancer treatments. Allopurinol was potentially effective in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis; antimicrobial mouthwash and erythropoietin mouthwash were associated with a lower risk of development of severe oral mucositis induced by chemotherapy. The results of our review may assist in highlighting the efficacy and testing the effectiveness of low-cost, safe preventative measures for oral mucositis in cancer patients.

they probably indicate patterns in utilization. Race and socioeconomic status are separate entities, but unfortunately they are all too often interrelated. These statistics could highlight disparities in access, as the cost of inflatable waterslides begins at $900 and can be in excess of $8,000. 9 Other reasons for different utilization could be attributed to cultural practices or preferences.Our study reviewed the largest sample of head and neck water slide injuries in the literature, and our findings largely validate the experiences of prior anecdotal series. Craniomaxillofacial fractures from waterslides are rare, as the forces from most injuries do not appear to be high impact. Of the 46 injuries identified by Paulozzi et al, 20 (43.5%) were in the head and neck. 3 Half of these resulted in lacerations, and all but one of the remaining injuries let to a concussion. Malpass et al found a similar predominance of lacerations (53%) and paucity of fractures (7%). 2 In general, fatalities were rare with only one documented case among published studies. 2 When comparing public and private waterslides, it is important to consider differences in how the slides are operated and used. Unnecessarily risky riding behavior and misuse may in part account for the different patterns of injury observed between waterslide types. Backyard slides are largely without independent supervision by an attendant. Private slides rely only on adult volunteers and a set of unstandardized rules. One prior author assessed the adequacy of uniform control systems (ie, traffic light system, closed circuit television, warning notices, part-time supervision, and rider behavior regulation) in waterslides. Their investigation determined that, despite strict implementation, a small but significant percentage of consecutive riders were still predisposed to interpersonal collision. Despite best efforts waterslides carry an inherent risk of unavoidable injury. Presumably, the probability of avoidable injury with backyard slides would be even greater. Interestingly, we found that the share of cranial injuries was greater with backyard slides. This aligns with our hypothesis that the unsafe practice of headfirst riding may be more prevalent in this group.Waterslides inherently carry injury risk by virtue of their mechanism of action. However, there are certain safe riding habits that can be implemented to reduce the likelihood of head, neck, and body trauma. Sliding feet first in a supine or seated position eliminates the cranium as the first point of contact. Riding on the stomach should always be avoided, and all body parts should remain within the confines of the slide. Riders should not attempt to achieve unsafe traveling velocities by taking running starts. Likewise, mats or other accessories should not be permitted on slides as they may further decrease friction and reduce control. The end of the slide should always remain unobstructed. For public slides, riders should exit plunge pools as soon as possible to avoid blindside collisions. For b...

No abstract