Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Differences in oral health status between cancer patients: a case-control observational study.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this observational case‒control study was to compare the oral health (OH) status of Bone metastatic cancer (BMC) patients (case Group 1), head and neck cancer HNC patients (case Group 2) and systemically healthy patients (control group). The secondary objective was to identify any risk factors associated with poor OH status.
methodsThis study was conducted from 2018-2024, and all patients were evaluated at the Oral Medicine, Head and Neck Department-Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCSS, Rome. The OH status was clinically and radiographically evaluated using the DMFT index, a full periodontal chart and a radiological examination (orthopantomography). The OH status was defined as "poor" in patients with stage III or IV periodontitis and/or a DMFT score ≥ 13. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (ID-5746). Univariate statistical analysis was performed to detect associations between different clinical variables and OH. The associated variables were subjected to multivariate logistic regression to retrieve the independent risk factors for poor OH.
resultsA total of 510 (170 per group) patients were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis revealed that HNC patients showed significantly worse oral conditions when compared to BMC patients and controls. HNC patients showed an OR of 2.36 (95% CI: 1.35-4.13, p = 0.003) for poor OH when compared to control group. No differences were found between BMC patients and control group. Smoking habits (OR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.93-5.35, p < 0.0001), and age > 70 years (OR: 17.44, 95% CI: 8.78-34.66, p < 0.0001) were other significant risk factors for poor OH. The risk decreased for younger patients: for patients aged 60-69 years, the OR was 5.17 (95% CI: 2.74-9.75, p < 0.0001); for patients aged 50-59 years, it was 4.22 (95% CI: 2.30-7.76, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsHNC patients exhibit significantly poorer OH than BMC patients and healthy controls, highlighting the need for enhanced dental care in oncologic management. Nevertheless, smoking habits and age remain important risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.