The objective of the present study was to assess the current situation of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in northern Thailand, with an emphasis on patients <40 years of age. Medical records of patients histologically diagnosed with OSCC were collected from the Cancer Registry of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Thailand between 2001 and 2010. The clinico-demographic data of patients aged <40 years (young group) and those aged ≥40 years (old group) were compared. A total of 874 patients were included in this study, of which 4.1% were <40 years of age. The tongue was the most common cancer site in both age groups. Most patients in both age groups were diagnosed with oral cancer at stage IV. Tobacco smoking (62.3%) and alcohol consumption (52.3%) were the most common risk factors in both age groups. However, the rates of betel quid chewing (17.5%) had decreased from those found in our study in the previous decade (50.2%); these rates were not found in the young group. The 5-year survival rate was 27.4% for the old group and 56.2% for the young group. OSCC remains a serious oral health problem in northern Thailand, and it has not been resolved among young adults. (J Oral Sci 57, 327-334, 2015)

Objectives The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM). Materials and methods A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent. Conclusion Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.