An impossible choice: MRONJ vs ORN? The difficulties of the decision-making process for head and neck cancer patients on long-term anti-angiogenic medication
“…While it has been suggested that clinical guidelines often oversimplify treatment decision-making regarding implants, numerous studies highlighted the importance of considering multiple factors before selecting, preparing, or saving implants, particularly the patient’s medical history, bone quality, and implant location [ 30 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. This was echoed by studies investigating surgical, extractive, and sedative decision making, which suggest consideration of patient factors such as medical history, including oncological prognosis and the level of dental anxiety [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dentists should consider the specifics of the individual patient, and assess the applicability of existing guidelines. The guidelines suggested by numerous studies emphasised patient-centred care and the importance of considering patient factors during treatment [ 75 , 76 , 78 , 81 ]. For example, a history of endocarditis and bisphosphonates may lead to a general refusal of implants [ 75 , 76 ].…”
Clinical decision-making for diagnosing and treating oral and dental diseases consolidates multiple sources of complex information, yet individual clinical judgements are often made intuitively on limited heuristics to simplify decision making, which may lead to errors harmful to patients. This study aimed at systematically evaluating dental practitioners’ clinical decision-making processes during diagnosis and treatment planning under uncertainty. A scoping review was chosen as the optimal study design due to the heterogeneity and complexity of the topic. Key terms and a search strategy were defined, and the articles published in the repository of the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) were searched, selected, and analysed in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of the 478 studies returned, 64 relevant articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies that were included were based in 27 countries, with the majority from the UK and USA. Articles were dated from 1991 to 2022, with all being observational studies except four, which were experimental studies. Six major recurring themes were identified: clinical factors, clinical experience, patient preferences and perceptions, heuristics and biases, artificial intelligence and informatics, and existing guidelines. These results suggest that inconsistency in treatment recommendations is a real possibility and despite great advancements in dental science, evidence-based practice is but one of a multitude of complex determinants driving clinical decision making in dentistry. In conclusion, clinical decisions, particularly those made individually by a dental practitioner, are potentially prone to sub-optimal treatment and poorer patient outcomes.
“…While it has been suggested that clinical guidelines often oversimplify treatment decision-making regarding implants, numerous studies highlighted the importance of considering multiple factors before selecting, preparing, or saving implants, particularly the patient’s medical history, bone quality, and implant location [ 30 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. This was echoed by studies investigating surgical, extractive, and sedative decision making, which suggest consideration of patient factors such as medical history, including oncological prognosis and the level of dental anxiety [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dentists should consider the specifics of the individual patient, and assess the applicability of existing guidelines. The guidelines suggested by numerous studies emphasised patient-centred care and the importance of considering patient factors during treatment [ 75 , 76 , 78 , 81 ]. For example, a history of endocarditis and bisphosphonates may lead to a general refusal of implants [ 75 , 76 ].…”
Clinical decision-making for diagnosing and treating oral and dental diseases consolidates multiple sources of complex information, yet individual clinical judgements are often made intuitively on limited heuristics to simplify decision making, which may lead to errors harmful to patients. This study aimed at systematically evaluating dental practitioners’ clinical decision-making processes during diagnosis and treatment planning under uncertainty. A scoping review was chosen as the optimal study design due to the heterogeneity and complexity of the topic. Key terms and a search strategy were defined, and the articles published in the repository of the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) were searched, selected, and analysed in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of the 478 studies returned, 64 relevant articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies that were included were based in 27 countries, with the majority from the UK and USA. Articles were dated from 1991 to 2022, with all being observational studies except four, which were experimental studies. Six major recurring themes were identified: clinical factors, clinical experience, patient preferences and perceptions, heuristics and biases, artificial intelligence and informatics, and existing guidelines. These results suggest that inconsistency in treatment recommendations is a real possibility and despite great advancements in dental science, evidence-based practice is but one of a multitude of complex determinants driving clinical decision making in dentistry. In conclusion, clinical decisions, particularly those made individually by a dental practitioner, are potentially prone to sub-optimal treatment and poorer patient outcomes.
Subject. The relevance of this review is related to the increasing number of patients taking osteomodifying agents. Osteomodifying agents are used in the treatment of bone metastases of malignant tumors and osteoporosis. A serious complication associated with the use of osteomodifying agents – bisphosphonates – is bisphosphonate osteonecrosis of the jaw. There are also data on the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw when taking denosumab. However, the pathogenesis of this complication is not fully understood. Study of etiological factors and pathogenetic mechanisms of jaw osteonecrosis development, associated with taking osteomodifying agents will allow to prevent it at early stages and improve quality of life of patients.
Objectives – analysis of foreign studies on the impact of osteomodifying agents on the human body and associated osteonecrosis of the jaws.
Methodology. The literature review was carried out on the basis of the analysis of the published studies. Using the key words in the electronic resource of the journal "Nature" the foreign scientific studies with the results of the research on the influence of the osteomodifying agents on the human body and the cases of osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with them were selected.
Results. OMAs increase bone density through several mechanisms. However, some osteomodifying agents increase the risk of atypical fractures of the femur, forearms, and vertebrae, and increase the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw and some cancers. Research continues on risk factors for these complications in patients taking osteomodifying agents.
Conclusion. Osteomodifying agents are widely used in oncology and prevention of age-related changes in the human bone system. Therapeutic effects and complications of therapy with osteomodifying agents are studied worldwide.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.