Prevention and early diagnosis of oral cancer – a literature review

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The present study identified and described scientific production on primary and secondary prevention of oral cancer worldwide. This is an integrative review of the literature, focusing on the description of oral cancer prevention experiences.METHODS: The search was performed in the Virtual Health Library (VHL), using the descriptors: early diagnosis, oral neoplasms, primary prevention and secondary prevention. We found 225 articles and selected 22 after evaluation, divided into three themes.RESULTS: Four articles awareness-raising and population-tracking campaigns with the valorization of the role of the dental surgeon and the involvement of health teams. The non-invasive diagnostic methods, considered in fifteen articles, addressed the implementation of new strategies for the early detection of this pathology by different diagnostic methods. The reorganization of the health system (3 articles) encompassed the permanent education of oral health professionals, epidemiological surveillance and reorganization of health services with integration of health care levels. The great majority of the reviewed experiences showed positive results in the prevention of oral cancer. An exception was the active search for suspected cases in the population, since the cost benefit did not compensate the expenditure with human resources for this purpose. The non-invasive methods reported are useful for screening but do not substitute the biopsia for diagnosis.

Non-Invasive Methods for Early Diagnosis of Oral Cancer

“…It has the advantages of being painless, harmless, noninvasive, and low-cost. As for disadvantages, it does not have the same efficacy as biopsy concerning identifying the type of lesion, but it is beneficial when the biopsy is not possible [20,28,29].…”

“…However, a study by showed that the difficulties encountered about the device and the anatomical structures examined (lip and oral cavity) were related to the contact of the lens surface, fine tremors, and the sliding of the device; these difficulties varied according to topography. The quality depended on the site of the lesion, the extent of the ulceration, the volume of crusts, prior cleaning of the site, patient collaboration, the presence of more or less saliva, the mobility of the examined structure, and the support for the device [28,30].…”