Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Oral Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Prevalence of oral manifestations in children and adolescents with cancer submitted to chemotherapy

  • Deise Berger Velten1Email author,
  • Eliana Zandonade1 and
  • Maria Helena Monteiro de Barros Miotto1
BMC Oral HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:49

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0331-8

Received: 27 April 2016

Accepted: 4 August 2016

Published: 20 January 2017

Abstract

Background

Oral complications may be observed during chemotherapy and are important side effects that may directly affect the anticancer treatment, even causing septicaemia in some cases. This research was done in order to evaluate changes in oral lesions during follow-up of children and adolescents in chemotherapy at Hospital Estadual Infantil Nossa Senhora da Glória (HEINSG).

Methods

The study design was longitudinal, 45 patients were evaluated and monitored for 1 month after the initiation of chemotherapy. Twenty-eight patients were male and 17 female, ranging from 3 months to 18 years old.

Results

The results show an increase in the number of mucositis cases and a decrease in xerostomia cases after the initiation of treatment, and other oral lesions were also found in low numbers.

Conclusions

It is possible to avoid oral complications by maintaining a good oral health, and reducing infectious outbreaks. It is also feasible to obtain an early diagnosis of, and treat these oral complications, preventing them from following a more severe clinical course that may negatively affect the individual’s treatment. This outcome requires the presence of a dental surgeon on the multidisciplinary cancer treatment team.

Keywords

ChemotherapyOral manifestationsOncology

Background

Cancer is a term used to describe a group of diseases that involve the uncontrolled growth of cells [1]. In recent decades, cancer has become a serious global public health problem. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that in the year 2030, there will be 27 million incident cases of cancer, 17 million deaths from cancer, and 75 million people each year living with cancer. The regions most affected by these increases are developing countries [2].

Infant-juvenile cancers differ from adult cancers in many respects, such as types, sites, aetiologies, characteristics and treatments [1].

Neoplasms were the leading cause (7%) of deaths due to morbidity in children and adolescents (1–19 years) in 2011 and were surpassed by only deaths due to external causes. This fact is particularly troubling when one considers that younger individuals comprise a large proportion of the Brazilian population. According to information from the last population census in 2010, approximately 30% of the population is below the age of 19 [3].

According to population-based cancer records (Registros de Câncer de Base Populacional), the percentage of paediatric tumours observed in Brazil is 3%. Approximately 11,840 new cases of cancer in children and adolescents up to 19 years of age have been estimated in Brazil for 2014 [3].

There has been an improvement in the survival rates of children with cancer due to dosage intensification and the combination of chemotherapy drugs, which has also led to success in the cancer treatment healing response [4, 5]. Chemotherapy acts by destroying or inhibiting the growth of rapidly multiplying cells, without differentiating cancer cells, which proliferate rapidly, from normal cells, such as the oral mucosa [6].

Chemotherapy is used to treat approximately 70% of cancer patients [5, 7]. Of these patients, 40% develop oral manifestations, and this number increases to over 90% in children under 12 years of age [6, 8].

The following oral manifestations related to anticancer treatment are commonly found: mucositis, xerostomia [9, 10], infections, salivary gland dysfunction, dysgeusia and pain [11].

Given that most infant-juvenile patients with malignancies receive chemotherapy, which is often associated with side effects consisting of oral complications, this study aimed to evaluate changes over the course of two monitoring sessions in the oral manifestations of children and adolescents receiving chemotherapy at the Hospital Estadual Infantil Nossa Senhora da Glória (HEINSG).

Methods

This study had a longitudinal design and was performed by monitoring children and adolescents aged up to 18 years and 364 days who had received their first cancer diagnosis and had started chemotherapy at HEINSG between April 2013 and April 2014. The individuals were evaluated on two occasions approximately 1 month after the initiation of chemotherapy.

When individuals were admitted to HEINSG and diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm, at the first study stage, an interview and clinical examination were performed before or within 3 days of starting chemotherapy. At this stage, data regarding oral health and sociodemographic characteristics, such as gender, age, place of birth, education, maternal education and socioeconomic status, were collected.

The HEINSG serves its patients only by the Unified Health System (SUS) and it is located the only reference center of public state network for cancer treatment in children and adolescents. Being a public referral hospital usually the patients treated are less favored socioeconomic status.

The Economic Classification of individuals followed the New Economic Classification Standard Criteria of Brazil, which aims to discriminate large groups of people according to their consumption capacity of accessible products and services to a significant portion of the population and classify households, assuming, as an assumption that the class is a familiar feature among others. According to this criterion individuals can be classified into five classes A, B, C, D and E and class A is the best economic status and class E the worst economic condition [12].

Some information, such as the indicated treatment and diagnosis, was collected from the patient’s medical records.

For information about xerostomia, mucositis, oral candidiasis, herpes simplex and cold sore, a clinical examination was conducted after completing the interview. All patients were examined in HEINSG dependencies by the same operator, which was a dentist (DBV), thus, diminishing the interobserver variation. A preparation was made through pictures of the most common oral alterations that would be expected to be found in the study group.

Through sialometry it is possible to evaluate the production of unstimulated saliva, or by chemical, mechanical or gustatory stimulation [13]. Individuals commonly produce 0.3 ml/min of saliva without stimulation; when secretion is less than or equal to 0.1 ml/min, it is characterised as hyposalivation [14].

An adaptation was made to the criteria proposed by the World Health Organization [15], a scale test that consists in measuring the production of saliva produced for 1 min in a graph vessel (0 to 3 ml), to diagnose hyposalivation [13]. The test was performed after 1.5–2 h in which the patient should not have smoked, drunk, washed his mouth or swallowed food.

When the sialometry test performed in patients obtained a measure less than 0.3 ml/min. saliva, and moreover were present the symptoms described in any of degrees of severity scale used to quantify the xerostomia as a side effect (Table 1) proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) xerostomia was considered present and was considered absent when the test there was a greater extent 0.3 ml/min and was also not observed any symptoms.
Table 1

Quantification of xerostomia as a side effect according to WHO

 

Degrees of severity of xerostomia

Grade 1

Symptomatic (thick or sparse saliva) without significant dietary changes, saliva production unstimulated > 0.2 ml/min.;

Grade 2

Symptomatic with significant changes in the oral intake (copious intake of water or use of other lubricants, limited to purees diet and/or soft and wet food); unstimulated saliva production from 0.1 to 0.2 ml/min.;

Grade 3

Symptoms leading to inability to feed orally; need for administration of intravenous fluids, enteral or parenteral nutrition; unstimulated saliva flow <0,1 ml/min.

Fonte. World Health Organization. Nacional Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [15]

Xerostomia was only evaluated in children aged 6 years or more and in adolescents.

Mucositis was diagnosed via clinical examination by evaluating the appearance of the oral mucosa. Mucositis was not graded according to severity but was considered absent or present according to whether a change in the mucosa was noted on any of the severity scales (discoloration, erythema, pseudomembrane or deep ulceration) proposed by the WHO [15].

Complications including oral candidiasis, labial herpes simplex and mouth ulcers were evaluated by visual clinical examination [16].

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed on the sociodemographic characteristics and oral manifestations of the participants at the three study stages, according to their respective frequencies and percentages. The Kappa statistic was used to measure concordance in cases in which a particular individual presented an oral manifestation at the next stage.

McNemar’s test was used to verify changes in the number of cases of oral manifestations (direction of disagreement) between stages. A significance level of 5% was adopted, and the software used in all analyses was IBM (SPSS) version 21.

All parents or guardians of the participants signed the consent form and previously clarified data collection. The study was approved on 20 February 2013 by the Research Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Center (Health Sciences Center) of the Federal University of Espirito Santo (Federal University of Espirito Santo - UFES) by the number opinion 201,117.

Results

Between the months April 2013 and April 2014, a total of 66 children and adolescents were admitted to HEINSG diagnosed with cancer to make chemotherapy. In 15 of these patients it was not possible to approach (Fig. 1). The initial study population was composed of 51 individuals so.
Fig. 1

Deaths during the monitoring of patients at HEINSG

The final sample size was 45 children and adolescents at the second evaluation (1 month after the initial examination). It was not possible to follow six patients between the 1st and 2nd moments described in Fig. 1.

Table 2 shows the sociodemographic characteristics and diagnosis of the 45 individuals monitored during the study who were evaluated approximately 30 days after the initial examination, showing that most of the individuals were in the one- to 4-year-old age group (31.1%), were male (62.2%), resided in greater Vitória (46.7%), belonged to socioeconomic class C (62.2%), attended school (73.3%), and had up to 4 years of education (24.4%). Regarding the children’s and adolescents’ families, the heads of most households were fathers (62.2%). The education data clearly show that most household heads had up to 8 years of education (40%), and most of the mothers had more than 12 years of education (35.5%).
Table 2

Sociodemographic characteristics and diagnosis of 45 children and adolescents who were monitored in the study (2013 and 2014, HEINSG)

Category

n

%

Age group

Less than 1 year

4

8.9

1–4 years

14

31.1

5–9 years

11

24.4

10–14 years

6

13.3

15–18 years

10

22.2

Gender

Male

28

62.2

Female

17

37.8

City of residence/Home location

Greater Vitória – ES state

21

46.7

City in ES state (other than the capital city)

18

40.0

Bahia state

4

8.9

Minas Gerais state

2

4.4

Socioeconomic class

B

7

15.6

C

28

62.2

D

9

20.0

E

1

2.2

Head of household

Father

28

62.2

Mother

3

6.7

Grandfather/Grandmother

3

6.7

Other

11

24.4

Education of household head

(years of study)

0–4 years of study

4

8.9

4–8 years of study

18

40.0

8–12 years of study

12

26.7

More than 12 years of study

11

24.5

Mother’s education

(years of study)

0–4 years of study

3

6.6

4–8 years of study

15

33.3

8–12 years of study

10

22.2

More than 12 years of study

16

35.5

Not known

1

2.0

Diagnosis

Leukaemia

17

37.7

Lymphomas

10

22.2

Renal tumours

4

8.8

CNS tumours

4

8.8

Sympathetic NS tumours

3

6.6

Bone tumours

2

4.4

Other

5

11.1

Table 2 also shows that leukaemia was the most common diagnosis, occurring in 37.7% of cases.

Table 3 shows the prevalence of oral complications found during the clinical examinations conducted during the three research stages. The prevalence of mucositis considerably increased between the first and second study stages, rising from 3.9 to 17.8%. The prevalence of Xerostomia considerably decreased between the first and second stages, falling from 31 to 7.4% of cases.
Table 3

Prevalence of oral manifestations at the two research stages

 

Stages

n

%

n

%

Mucositis

2

3.9

8

17.8

Xerostomia

9

31

2

7.4

Cold sores

1

2

1

2.2

Candidiasis

2

3.9

4

8.9

Herpes simplex

0

0

1

2.2

Table 4 shows the changes in oral manifestations between the first and second study stages. A reduction in the number of cases of xerostomia was observed between the first and second stages, and the result of McNemar’s test was very close to the significance level, with a p-value of 0.06.
Table 4

Changes in oral manifestations between the first and second study stages

 

Stage 1

Stage 2

Kappa

P value

McNemar

Yes

No

P value

Mucositis

Yes

0

2

−0.077

0.999

0.109

No

8

35

Xerostomia

Yes

2

5

0.369

0.065

0.063

No

0

19

Cold sores

Yes

0

1

−0.023

0.999

0.999

No

1

43

Candidiasis

Yes

2

0

0.646

0.006

0.500

No

2

41

Discussion

Approximately 40% of adult cancer patients and more than 90% of children under 12 years of age undergoing cancer treatment have oral manifestations that directly or indirectly arise from stomatotoxicities, such as mucositis; xerostomia; fungal infections, such as candidiasis; and viral infections, such as labial herpes simplex [6, 8].

Many national and international studies in the literature show a correlation between anticancer treatments, particularly chemotherapy and the occurrence of oral complications in infant-juvenile patients and adults [7, 10, 1726], and the magnitude of these side effects depends on a number of factors related to the treatment, tumour and patient [22].

A less favored socioeconomic status is usually related to a greater number of oral diseases such as caries, i.e., a more unfavorable oral condition, which increases the risk of oral manifestations during chemotherapy [27]. In this study, however this association was not proven statistically, probably because patients studied belonged mostly to classes B, C and D, with a greater concentration in class C, which made it difficult to compare the classes. Our results therefore showed that oral manifestations were not related to the socioeconomic status of patients.

Oral mucositis is defined as an inflammation and ulceration of the oral mucosa [2832] and is one of the most common and frequent lesions in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. It is a major cause of pain and also represents a distressing experience for cancer patients [27, 33].

In this study, an increase in oral mucositis cases was observed between the first and second stages. In addition, mucositis was the most common oral manifestation found in the clinical examination conducted 1 month after the beginning of chemotherapy. This result is similar to those found in other studies [22, 23, 26, 34] conducted in Brazil (Recife, Juiz de Fora, São José dos Campos and João Pessoa) and abroad (China). Other authors [25] have observed mucositis percentages higher than those found in this study. The results of research conducted in São Luis (Brazil) [17] were different than those of this study, as few cases of mucositis occurred during anticancer treatment for leukaemia. This finding was likely due to the small sample, which included only 12 individuals. The literature varies regarding the prevalence of oral mucositis induced by chemotherapy, which has been reported to be 40 [21], 65 [32] and between 52 and 81% [32]. However, in general, the results reported in the literature have been higher than those found in this study, which is likely due to favourable oral health conditions before the initiation of treatment, with a low percentage of oral diseases, which reduces the risk of developing oral manifestations during treatment [6]. In this study, children and adolescents with various types of cancer were examined, which may, to some extent, be responsible for the low prevalence of mucositis, whereas in studies concentrating solely on leukaemia patients, generally speaking, a higher prevalence of oral manifestations was encountered because leukaemia is characterised by a high incidence of oral lesions during treatment [34].

Tests used in this study for measuring salivary flow were an adaptation of the standards proposed by the World Health Organization for quantification of xerostomia as a side effect of chemotherapy. Usually, authors recommend saliva collection for 5 min to measure the flow, but in adults [13]. In the present study, patients evaluated were children and adolescents who showed a severe general condition, sometimes incapacitating, so we chose to perform this adaptation in sialometry test, reducing saliva collection time.

In this study, the number of xerostomia cases declined between the first and second stages. Different results were found by other estudos [10, 23] of leukaemic patients [26] in which there was an increase in the number of cases of xerostomia between stages. It is likely that in this study, the reduction in xerostomia cases after the start of chemotherapy (which was close to the significance level, reaching 6%) was due to the care given during treatment, as an increased number of cases of leukaemia can be observed among patients, and the majority of individuals with leukaemia remained hospitalised, received continuous intravenous hydration and also followed guidelines regarding the need for extensive water and liquid intake in the first month of treatment.

A low prevalence of oral candidiasis was found in this study, which is consistent with other studies [23] and differs from the results obtained in one study [26] of leukaemia patients. The low prevalence of oral candidiasis (a result of the myelosuppression caused by chemotherapy agents) was likely due to the use of antifungal drugs that act topically and also systemic during the treatment [34] of most patients. Antifungal medicaments used were fluconazole 100 mg, once a day and nystatin, three times daily. These medicaments were prescribed by the hospital crew at the first signs of oral candidiasis, perhaps this influenced the low prevalence of this disease. These antifungals are not known to cause salivary flow reduction.

Patients with better oral health conditions and satisfactory oral hygiene develop fewer oral manifestations, and those conditions that do occur have a more rapid clinical course [34]. Studies have reinforced the importance of oral health for the prevention and reduction of oral complications of cancer treatment [9, 31], so prior to chemotherapy it is important to perform a Stomatological evaluation and dental care to reduce infectious outbreaks, such as removal of carious lesions and extensive restorations, treatment of periodontal disease and even tooth extractions in cases of teeth that require prolonged treatment, as all infectious processes originated in the oral cavity present a high risk of systemic infection, which can lead to septic episodes in immunocompetent patients compromised by oncologic therapy.

The presence of a dental surgeon working directly on the medical team is essential for the prevention and treatment of oral manifestations resulting from antineoplastic treatment. This dental surgeon can assist with preventing the development of a more severe clinical course, which can even result in the suspension of antineoplastic treatment [23, 34, 35].

The sample size was a limitation of this study. However, in Brazil, the observed percentage of paediatric tumours is 3%, demonstrating the low prevalence of this disease, which makes allocating a large number of individuals difficult in a primary data study.

Conclusions

Based on the results observed in this study, it can be concluded that oral manifestations were present, including mucositis, which increased and xerostomia, which showed a reduction in the number of cases after the start of chemotherapy. Oral complications, despite their relatively low prevalence, were nonetheless present and are among the most devastating complications in both the short and long term, affecting basic human activities such as eating and communicating. Furthermore, these lesions may interfere with cancer treatment, causing more serious infections or even sepsis.

The presence of an active dental surgeon on the multidisciplinary oncology team is therefore indispensable, as they can assist in the prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of oral manifestations. A dental surgeon can prevent lesions from escalating, thereby improving the patient’s quality of life during treatment.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We declare that there was no significant contribution in addition to the authors themselves in the making of the article.

Funding

All spending on research were paid for by the authors.

Availability of data and materials

The authors offer and authorize the use of this article and also the data on it without restriction, distribution and reproduction in any medium this to be given due credit to the original authors.

Authors’ contributions

D B V: a) the design and design, analysis and interpretation of data, b) drafting the article or revising it critically e c) approval of the version to be published. E Z: a) the design and design, analysis and interpretation of data, b) revising it critically. M H M B M: a) the design and design, analysis and interpretation of data, b) revising it critically e c) approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Ms. Deise Berger Velten – Dental Surgeon - Master in Public Health and teacher at the Federal University of Espírito Santo. Dr. Eliana Zandonade – PhD in statistics and teacher at the Federal University of Espírito Santo. Dr. Maria Helena Monteiro de Barros Miotto – Dental Surgeon - Doctor of Public Health and teacher at the Federal University of Espírito Santo.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is included in the consent to participate in research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All parents or guardians of the participants signed the consent form and previously clarified data collection. The study was approved on 20 February 2013 by the Research Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Center (Health Sciences Center) of the Federal University of Espirito Santo (Federal University of Espirito Santo - UFES) by the number opinion 201,117.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Federal University of Espírito Santo

References

  1. Brasil Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria Nacional de Assistência à Saúde, Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Estimativa 2010: incidência do câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Brasil Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Estimativa/2012: incidência do câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2011. [acessado 2012 set 23]. Disponível em: http://portal.saude.sp.gov.br/resources/ses/perfil/gestor/homepage/estimativas-de-incidencia-decancer-2012/estimativas_incidencia_cancer_2012.pdf.
  3. Câncer BINd. Estimativa/2014: incidência do câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2014. [acessado 2014 abr 20] Disponível em: http://www.saude.sp.gov.br/resources/ses/perfil/gestor/homepage/outros-destaques/estimativa-deincidencia-de-cancer-2014/estimativa_cancer_24042014.pdf.
  4. Cheng KKF, Molassiotis A, Chang AM, Wai WC, Cheung SS. Evaluation of an oral care protocol intervention in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis in paediatric cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:2056–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbosa AM, Ribeiro DM, Caldo-Teixeira AS. Conhecimentos e práticas em saúde bucal com crianças hospitalizadas com câncer. Ciênc saúde coletiva. 2010;15(Supl.1):1113–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Sonis ST, Fazio RC, Fang L. Complicações bucais da terapia do câncer. In: Sonis ST, Fazio RC, Fang L, editors. Princípios e prática de medicina oral. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 1996. p. 358–83.Google Scholar
  7. Osterne RLV, Brito RGM, Nogueira RLM, Soares ECS, Alves APNN, Moura JFB, et al. Saúde bucal em pacientes portadores de neoplasias malignas: estudo clínico-epidemiológico e análise de necessidades odontológicas de 421 pacientes. Rev bras cancerol. 2008;54(3):221–26.Google Scholar
  8. Martins ACM, Caçador NP, Gaeti WP. Complicações bucais da quimioterapia antineoplásica. Acta Scientiarum. 2002;4(3):663–70.Google Scholar
  9. Sasada INV, Cancino CMH, Petersen RC, Hellwing I, Dillenburg CS. Prevenção de intercorrências estomatológicas em oncologia pediátrica. RFO. 2015;20(1):105–09.Google Scholar
  10. Lula ECO, Lula CEO, Alves CMCA, Lopes FF, Pereira AAP. Chemotherapy-induced oral complications in leukemic patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71:1681–85.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. National Cancer Institute. Oral complications of chemotherapy and head/neck radiation (PDQ) – Health Professional Version. 2014. [Acessado 2014 abr 25]. Disponível em: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0032604/.Google Scholar
  12. Brasil. Critério de Classificação Econômica Brasil/2012. ABEP: Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. Disponível em: http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil. Acesso em: 30 Jan. 2013.
  13. Feio M, Sapeta P. Xerostomia em cuidados paliativos. Acta Med Port. 2005;18:459–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen SB, Pedersen AM, Reibel J, et al. Xerostomia and hypofunction of the salivary glands in câncer therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11:207–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Organização Mundial de Saúde, Nacional Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. 2006. [Acessado 2014 set 2]. Disponível em: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf.Google Scholar
  16. Neville BW, Damm DD, Allen CM, Bouquot JE. Patologia oral & maxilofacial. 3rd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Elsevier; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Ye Y, Carlsson G, Agholme MB, Sjoberg JK, Lindberg KP, Putsep K, et al. Pretherapeutic plasma pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators are related to high risk of oral mucositis in pediatric patients with acute leukemia: A prospective cohort study. Plos One. 2013;8(5):1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Paiva MDEB, Biase RCCG, Moraes JJC, Ângelo AR, Honorato MCTM. Estudo retrospectivo das complicações orais decorrentes da terapia antineoplásica em pacientes do Hospital Napoleão Laureano, PB. Odontologia clín científ. 2007;6(1):51–5.Google Scholar
  19. Thomaz EBAF, Mouchrek Jr JCE, Silva AQ, Guerra RNM, Libério SA, Cruz MCFN. Longitudinal assessment of immunological and oral clinical conditions in patients undergoing anticancer treatment for leukemia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77:1088–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kreuger MRO, Savoldi LW, Hoffmann S, Diegoli NM. Complicações orais em pacientes em tratamento quimioterápico na UNACON, no município de Itajaí/SC. Revista da Faculdade de Odontologia de Lins. 2009; 21(1).Google Scholar
  21. Arisawa EAL, Silva CMOM, Cardoso CAC, Lemos NRPL, Pinto MC. Efeitos colaterais da terapia antitumoral em pacientes submetidos à quimio e à radioterapia. Rev biociên. 2005;11(1–2):55–61.Google Scholar
  22. Albuquerque RA, Morais VLL, Sobral APV. Avaliação clínica da frequência de complicações orais e sua relação com a qualidade de higiene bucal em pacientes pediátricos submetidos a tratamento antineoplásico. Arq Odontol. 2007;43(2):9–16.Google Scholar
  23. Hespanhol FL, Tinoco EMB, Teixeira HGC, Falabella MEV, Assis NMSP. Manifestações bucais em pacientes submetidos à quimioterapia. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2010;15(Supl. 1):1085–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Alberth M, Majoros L, Kovalecz G, Borbás E, Szegedi I, Márton IJ, et al. Significance of oral cândida infections in children with cancer. Pathology Oncology Research. 2006;12(4):237–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Otmani N, Alami R, Hessissen L, Mokhtari A, Soulaymani A, Khattab. Determinants of severe oral mucositis in paediatric cancer patients: a prospective study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;21:210–16.Google Scholar
  26. Santos VI, Anbinder AL, Cavalcante ASR. Leucemia no paciente pediátrico: atuação odontológica. Cienc Odontol Bras. 2003;6(2):49–57.Google Scholar
  27. Cheng KKF, Goggins WB, Lee VWS, Thompson DR. Risk Factors for oral mucositis in children undergoing chemotherapy: A matched case–control study. Oral Oncol. 2008;44:1019–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Volpato LER, Silva TC, Oliveira TM, Sakai VT, Machado MAAM. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2007;73(4):562–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Qutob AF, GUE S, Revesz T, Logan RM, Keefe D. Prevention of oral mucositis in children receiving cancer therapy: A systematic review and evidence-based analysis. Oral Oncol. 2013;49:102–07.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Belfield PM, Dwyer AA. Oral complications of childhood cancer and its treatment: current best practice. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40:1035–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Plevová P. Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy induced oral mucositis: a review. Oral Oncol. 1999;35:453–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ribeiro Júnior O, Borba AM, Guimarães JJ. Prevenção e tratamento da mucosite bucal: o papel fundamental do cirurgião dentista: Revisão. Rev clín pesq odontol. 2010;6(1):57–62.Google Scholar
  33. Cruz LB, Ribeiro AS, Rech A, Rosa LGN, Castro Júnior CG, Brunetto AL. Influence of Low-Energy Laser in the Prevention of Oral Mucositis in Children with Cancer receiving Chemotherapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:435–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Trindade AKF, De Biase RCCG, Filho GG, Pereira BC, Sousa EMD, Queiroga AS. Manifestações orais em pacientes pediátricos leucêmicos. Arq odontol. 2009;41(1):22–9.Google Scholar
  35. Ramirez-Amador V, Esquivel-Pedraza L, Mohar A, Reynoso-Gómez E, Volkow-Fernández P, Guarner J, et al. Chemotherapy-associated oral mucosal lesions in patients with leukaemia or lymphoma. Oral Oncol. 1996;32B(5):322–27.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement