Effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on oral health in patients with acute leukemia

Wahlin, Ylva Britt

doi:10.1016/0030-4220(89)90212-0

Cited by 79 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rutkauskas and Davis [26] stated that patients who received chlorhexidine while undergoing bone marrow transplantation were found to present fewer and less painful mucosal lesions. In contrast, Wahlin [33] reported that chlorhexidine had no effect of any clinical significance on parameters such as the number of days with fever, the number of oral lesions, plaque score, gingival bleeding score, or occurrence of candidiasis. Wahlin also found that patients who rinsed with chlorhexidine more often complained about a burning sensation in the mouth and had a tendency toward increased numbers of enterobacteria in the saliva.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Therefore, our intention was to attempt to improve this oral protocol by examining the effects of systemic oral and dental care in preventing oral complications. The base for this was found in the studies of numerous authors who argue that mechanical removal of plaque should precede chemical plaque formation control and report of the beneficial effect of mechanical plaque removal during chemotherapy on oral health with no increase in systemic complications [9,33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mucositis prevention by improved dental care in acute leukemia patients

Djuric

Hillier-Kolarov

Belić

et al. 2005

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucositis prevention by improved dental care in acute leukemia patients

Djuric

Hillier-Kolarov

Belić

et al. 2005

Support Care Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…81,[205][206][207][208] Furthermore, the emergence of infections caused by gram-negative bacilli despite chorhexidine mouthwashes, mouthwash-induced discomfort, and interference with the antifungal effect of nystatin have been reported. 205,206,[208][209][210] According to the evidence derived from randomized clinical trials, chlorhexidine cannot be recommended for the prophylaxis or treatment of oral mucositis occurring in the course of antineoplastic treatment.…”

Section: Chlorhexidinementioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Mucositis Complicating Chemotherapy and/or Radiotherapy: Options for Prevention and Treatment

Köstler

Hejna

Wenzel

et al. 2001

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

289

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence and severity of oral mucositis is influenced by the type of antineoplastic treatment administered and by patient-related factors. Severe courses of oral mucositis are observed during simultaneous radiochemotherapy, which Oral Mucositis Complicating Chemotherapy and/or Radiotherapy: Options for Prevention and TreatmentWolfgang J. Köstler, MD; Michael Hejna, MD; Catharina Wenzel, MD; and Christoph C. Zielinski, MD 290 CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians ABSTRACT Chemotherapy-and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis represents a therapeutic challenge frequently encountered in cancer patients. This side effect causes significant morbidity and may delay the treatment plan, as well as increase therapeutic expenses.The pathogenesis of this debilitating side effect can be attributed to the direct mucosal toxicity of cytotoxic agents and ionizing radiation and to indirect mucosal damage caused by a concomitant inflammatory reaction exacerbated in the presence of neutropenia, and the emergence of bacterial, mycotic, and viral infections. affects virtually all patients with head and neck cancer who receive this therapeutic modality. 8 However, up to 40% of patients treated with conventional chemotherapy and the more than 70% of patients undergoing conditioning therapy for bone marrow transplantation also experience oral treatment-related complications. 9,10The pathogenesis of oral mucositis is not fully understood, yet it is thought to involve direct and indirect mechanisms. Direct mucosal injury by radiation and chemotherapy interfere with the average 5-to 14-day turnover time of the oral epithelium 11 and induce apoptosis. Indirect stomatotoxic effects that result from the release of inflammatory mediators, loss of protective salivary constituents, and therapyinduced neutropenia have been postulated to contribute to the development of oral mucositis and also promote the emergence of bacteria, fungi, and viruses on damaged mucosa.12 Although a linear relationship among the occurrence of oral mucositis, oral and systemic granulocyte counts, and a coincidence of resolution of mucositis with neutrophil recovery, has been demonstrated, 10,[13][14][15] significant mucositis can occur in the absence of myelotoxicity. 16,17 In addition, the prophylactic or therapeutic elimination of the pathogenic mucosal flora frequently observed in patients developing oral mucositis by various antiseptic and antimicrobial agents can at most alleviate the course of oral mucositis (see Antimicrobal Agents p. 302).Based upon these considerations, newer pathophysiologic concepts have emerged characterizing oral mucositis as having an initial inflammatory/vascular phase, an epithelial phase, a (pseudomembraneous) ulcerative/bacteriological phase and a healing phase.18 During the inflammatory phase, tissue injury induces release of free radicals, modified proteins and proinflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1β, prostaglandins and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) by epithelial, endothelial, and connective tissue cells. These ...

show abstract

“…11 Early studies tested local administration of available antimicrobial agents, which were inconsistently effective in modifying the course and sequelae of oral mucositis. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] More recently, selective decontamination of the oral cavity with antimicrobial agents has demonstrated clinical benefit and a reduction in oral mucositis associated with radiation therapy. [25][26][27][28][29][30] Four randomized trials have tested polymyxin E (2 mg), tobramycin (1.8 mg), and amphotericin B (10 mg) (APT) lozenges for the prevention of radiation mucositis in head and neck cancer patients.…”

confidence: 99%

Prophylaxis of Radiation-Associated Mucositis in Conventionally Treated Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Double-Blind, Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Clinical Efficacy of an Antimicrobial Lozenge Using a Validated Mucositis Scoring System

El-Sayed

Nabid

Shelley

et al. 2002

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted on the basis of a pilot study that demonstrated the BCoG lozenge to be tolerable and microbiologically efficacious. A validated mucositis scoring system was used. However, in this group of patients treated with conventional radiotherapy, the lozenge did not impact significantly on the severity of mucositis. Whether such a lozenge would be beneficial in treatment situations where rate of severe mucositis is higher (ie, in patients treated with unconventional fractionation or with concomitant chemotherapy) is unknown.

show abstract

Effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on oral health in patients with acute leukemia

Cited by 79 publications

References 30 publications

Mucositis prevention by improved dental care in acute leukemia patients

Mucositis prevention by improved dental care in acute leukemia patients

Oral Mucositis Complicating Chemotherapy and/or Radiotherapy: Options for Prevention and Treatment

Prophylaxis of Radiation-Associated Mucositis in Conventionally Treated Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Double-Blind, Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Clinical Efficacy of an Antimicrobial Lozenge Using a Validated Mucositis Scoring System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About