Evidence Hub

Oral Sequelae after Head and Neck Radiotherapy: RCT Comparing 3D-Printed Tissue Retraction Devices with Conventional Dental Splints

Christopher Herpel, T. Held, Christos Labis, Leo Christ, K. Lang, S. Regnery, T. Eichkorn, Adriane Lentz-Hommertgen et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023

29 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate oral sequelae after head and neck radiotherapy (RT) when using two different types of intraoral appliances. Thermoplastic dental splints (active control) protect against backscattered radiation from dental structures. Semi-individualized, 3D-printed tissue retraction devices (TRDs, study group) additionally spare healthy tissue from irradiation. Materials and Methods: A total of 29 patients with head and neck cancer were enrolled in a randomized controlled pilot trial and allocated to receive TRDs (n = 15) or conventional splints (n = 14). Saliva quality and quantity (Saliva-Check, GC), taste perception (Taste strips, Burghart-Messtechnik), and oral disability (JFLS-8, OHIP-14, maximum mouth opening) were recorded before and 3 months after RT start. Radiotherapy target volume, modality, total dose, fractionation, and imaging guidance were case-dependent. To evaluate intra-group developments between baseline and follow-up, nonparametric Wilcoxon tests were performed. Mann-Whitney-U tests were applied for inter-group comparisons. Results: At follow-up, taste perception was unimpaired (median difference in the total score; TRDs: 0, control: 0). No significant changes were found regarding oral disability. Saliva quantity (stimulated flow) was significantly reduced with conventional splints (median −4 mL, p = 0.016), while it decreased insignificantly with TRDs (median −2 mL, p = 0.07). Follow-up was attended by 9/15 study group participants (control…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 29 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free