Objectives SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by inhalation of droplets and aerosols. This puts healthcare professionals from specialties with close patient contact at high risk of nosocomial infections with SARS-CoV-2. In this context, preprocedural mouthrinses with hydrogen peroxide have been recommended before conducting intraoral procedures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on reducing the intraoral SARS-CoV-2 load. Methods Twelve out of 98 initially screened hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were included in this study. Intraoral viral load was determined by RT-PCR at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL of 1% hydrogen peroxide for 30 s. After 30 min, a second examination of intraoral viral load was performed by RT-PCR. Furthermore, virus culture was performed for specimens exhibiting viral load of at least 103 RNA copies/mL at baseline. Results Ten out of the 12 initially included SARS-CoV-2-positive patients completed the study. The hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse led to no significant reduction of intraoral viral load. Replicating virus could only be determined from one baseline specimen. Conclusion A 1% hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse does not reduce the intraoral viral load in SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects. However, virus culture did not yield any indication on the effects of the mouthrinse on the infectivity of the detected RNA copies. Clinical relevance The recommendation of a preprocedural mouthrinse with hydrogen peroxide before intraoral procedures is questionable and thus should not be supported any longer, but strict infection prevention regimens are of paramount importance. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (ref. DRKS00022484)

No abstract

Background Radiotherapy aggravates implant‐based prosthetic rehabilitation in patients with head and neck cancer. Purpose To evaluate the impact of radiation dose at implant and parotid gland site for prosthetic rehabilitation. Material and methods The retrospective study includes 121 irradiated head and neck cancer patients with 751 inserted implants. Radiation doses on implant bed and parotid gland site were recorded by 3‐dimensional modulated radiation plans. Implant success was clinically and radiographically evaluated according to modified Albrektsson criteria and compared to treatment‐ and patient‐specific data. Results Implant overall survival after 5 years was 92.4% with an implant success rate of 74.9%. Main reasons for implant failure were marginal bone resorption (20.9%), implant not in situ or unloaded (9.6%) and peri‐implantitis (7.5%). A mean radiation dose of 62.6 Gy was applied with a mean parotid dose of 35 Gy. Modulating radiation techniques went along with lower grades of xerostomia (p < 0.001). At implant site mean doses of 57.5, 42.0, and 32.3 Gy were recorded for oral, oropharyngeal, and hypopharyngeal/laryngeal carcinoma, respectively. Implant success inversely correlated to radiation dose at implant site. Strong predictors for implant failure in uni‐ and multivariate analysis were implant‐specific dose >50 Gy (HR 7.9), parotid dose >30 Gy (HR 2.3), bone (HR 14.5) and soft tissue (HR 4.5) transplants, bad oral hygiene (HR 3.8), nonmodulated radiation treatment planning (HR 14.5), and nontelescopic prosthetics (HR 5.2). Conclusion Radiotherapy impedes implant success in a dose‐dependent manner at implant site. Modern radiation techniques effectively reduce xerostomia favoring implant‐based prosthetic rehabilitation. Implantation in bone grafts is more critical and telescopic‐retained overdentures should be preferred.

Background Microvascular tissue transfer (MTT) has been established as the gold standard in oral- and maxillofacial reconstruction. However, free flap surgery may be critical in multimorbid elderly patients and after surgery or radiotherapy, which aggravate microsurgery. This study evaluates indications and outcome of the submental island flap (SMIF) and the pectoralis major myocutaneous flap (PMMF) as alternatives to the free radial forearm flap (RFF). Methods This retrospective study included 134 patients who had undergone resection and reconstruction with SMIF, PMMF, or RFF at our department between 2005 and 2020. The level of comorbidity was measured with the Age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI). Primary outcome variables were flap success, complications, wound dehiscence, surgery duration, as well as time at the ICU and the ward (hospitalization). Chi-square tests, t-tests, and ANOVA were performed for statistics. Results 24 SMIFs, 52 RFFs, and 58 PMMFs were included in this study. The flap types did not significantly differ in terms of flap success, complications, and healing disorders. The SMIF presented a success rate of 95.8% and was significantly more often used in elderly patients (mean age = 70.2 years; p < 0.001) with increased comorbidities than the PMMF (p < 0.01) and RFF (p < 0.001). SMIF reconstruction reduced surgery duration (p < 0.001) and time at the ICU (p = 0.009) and the ward (p < 0.001) more than PMMF and RFF reconstructions. PMMF reconstruction was successful in 91.4% of patients and was more frequently used after head and neck surgery (p < 0.001) and radiotherapy (p < 0.001) than SMIF and RFF reconstructions. Patients undergoing PMMF reconstruction more frequently required segmental jaw resection and had presented with advanced tumor stages (both p < 0.001). Nicotine and alcohol abuse was more frequent in the RFF and PMMF groups (both p < 0.001) than in the SMIF group. Conclusions The pedicled SMIF represents a valuable reconstructive option for elderly patients with increased comorbidity because of the shorter duration of surgery and hospitalization. On the other hand, the PMMF serves as a solid backup solution after head and neck surgery or radiotherapy. The rates of flap success, complications, and healing disorders of both pedicled flaps are comparable to those of free flap reconstruction.

Purpose: Image artifacts caused by patient motion cause problems in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) because they lead to distortion of the 3-dimensional reconstruction. This prospective study was performed to quantify patient movement during CBCT acquisition and its influence on image quality. Materials and Methods: In total, 412 patients receiving CBCT imaging were equipped with a wireless head sensor system that detected inertial, gyroscopic, and magnetometric movements with 6 dimensions of freedom. The type and amplitude of movements during CBCT acquisition were evaluated and image quality was rated in 7 different anatomical regions of interest. For continuous variables, significance was calculated using the Student t-test. A linear regression model was applied to identify associations of the type and extent of motion with image quality scores. Kappa statistics were used to assess intra-and inter-rater agreement. Chi-square testing was used to analyze the impact of age and sex on head movement. Results: All CBCT images were acquired in a 10-month period. In 24% of the investigations, movement was recorded (acceleration: >0.10 [m/s 2 ]; angular velocity: >0.018 [°/s]). In all examined regions of interest, head motion during CBCT acquisition resulted in significant impairment of image quality (P<0.001). Movement in the horizontal and vertical axes was most relevant for image quality (R 2 >0.7). Conclusion: Relevant head motions during CBCT imaging were frequently detected, leading to image quality loss and potentially impairing diagnosis and therapy planning. The presented data illustrate the need for digital correction algorithms and hardware to minimize motion artefacts in CBCT imaging.