Osteonecrosis of the jaw is a condition in which bone cells die due to various causes. It is classified as drug-induced jaw osteonecrosis, osteoradionecrosis, traumatic, non-traumatic, and spontaneous osteonecrosis. Antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs cause drug-induced osteonecrosis. The combination of medications, microbial contamination, and local trauma induces this condition. Osteoradionecrosis is a severe radiation therapy side effect that can affect people with head and neck cancer. It is described as an exposed bone area that does not heal for longer than three months after the end of radiation treatment with the absence of any indications of an original tumor, recurrence, or metastasis. Trauma (tooth extraction), tumor site, radiation dose that the patient receives, the area of the bone which is irradiated, oral hygiene, and other factors are risk factors for the development of osteonecrosis. Less frequently, osteonecrosis can also be induced by non-traumatic and traumatic causes. Non-traumatic osteonecrosis is brought on by infections, acquired and congenital disorders, as well as the impact of chemicals. Traumatic osteonecrosis is brought on by thermal, mechanical, or chemical damage. The treatment of osteonecrosis can be conservative, which aims to be beneficial for the patient’s quality of life, and surgical, which involves debridement of the necrotic bone.

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown etiology which affects the oral mucosa. OLP varies in its clinical features from a reticular form that is, in most cases, asymptomatic, to atrophic–erosive, and is accompanied by symptoms of burning sensation and pain followed by difficulty in eating. Given the fact that OLP is a disease of unknown etiology, the treatment is symptomatic and involves suppressing the signs and symptoms of the disease using various topical and systemic drugs. The first line of therapy for treating symptomatic OLP is topical corticosteroids, whereas systemic corticosteroids are used for treating persistent lesions that do not respond to local treatment. However, the lack of convincing evidence on the efficacy of previous therapies, including topical corticosteroids, and numerous side effects that have appeared over recent years has resulted in the emergence and development of new therapeutic options. Some of the therapies mentioned are tacrolimus, efalizumab, dapson, interferon, retinoic acid, photochemotherapy with psoralen and ultraviolet A rays (PUVA), aloe vera, antimalarials, antibiotics and others. These therapies only partially meet the properties of efficacy and safety of use, thus justifying the continuous search and testing of new treatment methods.

This study aims to evaluate the potential benefits and challenges of integrating oral microbiome research into the clinical management of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The oral microbiome has gained significant attention for its role in the pathogenesis and progression of these conditions, with emerging evidence suggesting its value as a diagnostic and prognostic tool. By critically analyzing current evidence and methodological considerations, this manuscript examines whether microbiome analysis in biopsy samples can aid in the early detection, prognosis, and management of OPMD and OSCC. The complexity and dynamic nature of the oral microbiome require a multifaceted approach to fully understand its clinical utility. Based on this review, we conclude that studying the oral microbiome in this context holds significant promise but also faces notable challenges, including methodological variability and the need for standardization. Ultimately, this manuscript addresses the question, “Should such research be undertaken, given the intricate interactions of various factors and the inherent obstacles involved?”, and also emphasizes the importance of further research to optimize clinical applications and improve patient outcomes.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry has been recommended for different groups of patients, such as patients with impaired immunologic function, patients at risk of developing infective endocarditis or prosthetic joint infection, patients previously exposed to high-dose irradiation of the head and neck regions, and patients receiving intravenous bisphosphonate and antiangiogenic treatment. The guidelines have been changed over the years, and the list of medical conditions requiring antibiotic prophylaxis has been shortened considerably in the context of antibiotic resistance and unnecessary antibiotic prescription.

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to assess the updated literature for the prevention of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia induced by non-surgical cancer therapies. Methods: Electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that investigated interventions to prevent salivary gland hypofunction and/or xerostomia. Literature search began from the 2010 systematic review publications from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) up to February 2024. Two independent reviewers extracted information regarding study design, study population, cancer treatment modality, interventions, outcome measures, methods, results, risk of bias (RoB version 2), and conclusions for each article. Results: A total of 51 publications addressing preventive interventions were included. Eight RCTs on tissue-sparing radiation modalities were included showing significant lower prevalence of xerostomia, with unclear effect on salivary gland hypofunction. Three RCTs on preventive acupuncture showed reduced prevalence of xerostomia but not of salivary gland hypofunction. Two RCTs on muscarinic agonist stimulation with bethanechol suggested a preventive effect on saliva flow rate and xerostomia in patients undergoing head and neck radiation or radioactive iodine therapy. Two studies on submandibular gland transfer showed higher salivary flow rates compared to pilocarpine and lower prevalence of xerostomia compared to no active intervention. There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of vitamin E, amifostine, photobiomodulation, and miscellaneous preventive interventions. Conclusion: This systematic review continues to support the potential of tissue-sparing tecniques and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to preserve salivary gland function in patients with head and neck cancer, with limited evidence on other preventive strategies, including acupuncture and bethanecol. Preventive focus should be on optimized and new approaches developed to further reduce radiation dose to the parotid, the submandibular, and minor salivary glands. As these glands are major contributors to moistening of the oral cavity, limiting the radiation dose to the salivary glands through various modalities has demonstrated reduction in prevalence and severity of salivary gland hypofunction and xerostomia. There remains no evidence on preventive approaches for checkpoint inhibitors and other biologicals due to the lack of RCTs.