Purpose-To assess the prevalence and the dosimetric and clinical predictors of mandibular osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in patients with head and neck (HN) cancer who underwent pre-therapy dental evaluation and prophylactic treatment according to a uniform policy and were treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). [1996][1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005] all patients with HN cancer treated with parotid gland sparing IMRT in prospective studies underwent dental examination and prophylactic treatment according to a uniform policy including extractions of high-risk, periodontally involved and nonrestorable teeth in parts of the mandible expected to receive high doses, fluoride supplements, and guards aiming to reduce electron backscatter off metal teeth restorations. The IMRT plans included dose constraints for the maximal mandibular doses and reduced mean parotid gland and non-involved oral cavity doses. Retrospective analysis of grade ≥2 (clinical) ORN was performed. Methods and Materials-BetweenResults-176 patients had minimal follow-up 6 months. Thirty-one (17%) had teeth extractions prior to radiation and 13 (7%) post-radiation. 75% and 50% of the patients received at least 65Gy and 70Gy to ≥ 1% of the mandibular volumes, respectively. Fall-off across the mandible characterized the dose distributions: the average gradient (in the axial plane containing the maximal mandibular dose) was 11 Gy (range 1-27Gy, median 8Gy). At median 34 months follow-up there were no cases of ORN (95% CI, 0; 2%).Conclusions-The use of a strict prophylactic dental care policy and IMRT resulted in no case of clinical ORN. In addition to the dosimetric advantages offered by IMRT, meticulous dental prophylactic care is likely an essential factor in reducing ORN risk.

Special needs patients are one of the underserved dental patient groups in the United States. This study investigates whether undergraduate dental education about special needs patients affects general dentists' a) professional behavior, b) practice characteristics, and c) attitudes concerning special needs patients. Data were collected from 208 general dentists (178 male/30 female; average age: 49.85 years) who were members of the Michigan Dental Association. The more the respondents agreed that dental education had prepared them well, the more likely they were to treat various types of special needs patients and to set up their practices so they could treat them and the more they liked treating these patients. In conclusion, most general dentists did not think their undergraduate dental education had prepared them well to treat special needs patients. However, the better they reported to have been educated, the more likely they were to treat special needs patients. Given the access to care problems for many special needs patients, it seems crucial to revise dental curricula and provide more didactic and clinical education concerning the treatment of special needs patients.Mr.

The objectives of this study were to explore how U.S. and Canadian dental schools educate students about special needs patients and which challenges and intentions for curricular changes they perceive. Data were collected from twenty-two dental schools in the United States and Canada with a web-based survey. While 91 percent of the programs covered this topic in their clinical education, only 64 percent offered a separate course about special needs patients. The clinical education varied widely. Thirty-seven percent of the responding schools had a special clinical area in their school for treating these patients. These areas had between three and twenty-two chairs and were funded and staffed quite differently. Most programs covered the treatment of patients with more prevalent impairments such as Down syndrome (91 percent), autism spectrum disorders (91 percent), and motion impairments (86 percent). Written exams were the most common outcome assessments (91 percent), while objective structured clinical examinations (18 percent) and standardized patient experiences (9 percent) were used less frequently. The most commonly reported challenge was curriculum overload (55 percent). The majority (77 percent) planned educational changes over the next three years, with 36 percent of schools planning to increase clinical and 27 percent extramural experiences. The indings showed that the responding U.S. and Canadian dental schools had a wide range of approaches to educating predoctoral students about treating special needs patients. In order to eliminate oral health disparities and access to care issues for these patients, future research should focus on developing best practices for educational efforts in this context.Ms. Krause is a dental student at the University of Michigan; Ms.

Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is characterized by nonhealing exposed bone in the maxillofacial region in patients who have undergone bisphosphonate treatment. The underlying etiology is unclear and may be multifactorial. The diagnosis is primarily clinical. Diagnostic tissue sampling may exacerbate the process and is typically avoided, necessitating other diagnostic approaches. The appearance of ONJ at diagnostic imaging is variable and includes sclerotic, lytic, or mixed lesions with possible periosteal reaction, pathologic fractures, and extension to soft tissues. There is a spectrum of signal intensity changes on T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) images with variable enhancement, findings that may correspond to the clinical and histopathologic stage of the process. Bone scintigraphy is sensitive with increased uptake in the area of the lesion. Although the imaging findings are nonspecific, there appears to be a role for imaging in the management of ONJ. Radiography is relatively insensitive but typically employed as the first line of radiologic investigation. Computed tomography and MR imaging are more precise in demonstrating the extent of the lesion. A number of imaging modalities have revealed lesions that may be associated with bisphosphonate exposure in asymptomatic individuals or in the context of nonspecific symptoms. The risk of these lesions advancing to overt clinical disease is unknown at this time. The radiologist should be aware of ONJ and include it in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients with a history of bisphosphonate therapy without jaw irradiation, so as to avoid potentially harmful biopsies.

No abstract