Patton Lauren L, Epstein Joel B, Kerr A Ross
Department of Dental Ecology, General Practice Residency Program, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450, USA.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jul;139(7):896-905; quiz 993-4. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0276.
Adjunctive techniques that may facilitate the early detection of oral premalignant and malignant lesions (OPML) have emerged in the past decades.
The authors undertook a systematic review of the English-language literature to evaluate the effectiveness of toluidine blue (TB), ViziLite Plus with TBlue (Zila Pharmaceuticals, Phoenix), ViziLite (Zila Pharmaceuticals), Microlux DL (AdDent, Danbury, Conn.), Orascoptic DK (Orascoptic, a Kerr Company, Middleton, Wis.), VELscope (LED Dental, White Rock, British Columbia, Canada) and OralCDx (Oral CDx Laboratories, Suffern, N.Y.) brush biopsy. They abstracted data relating to study design, sampling and characteristics of the study group, interventions, reported outcomes and diagnostic accuracy of adjunctive aids from 23 articles meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, including availability of histologic outcomes.
The largest evidence base was for TB. A limited number of studies was available for ViziLite, ViziLite Plus with TBlue and OralCDx. Studies of VELscope have been conducted primarily to assess the margins of lesions in known OPML. The authors identified no studies of Microlux DL or Orascoptic DK. Study designs had various limitations in applicability to the general practice setting, including use of higher-risk populations and expert examiners.
There is evidence that TB is effective as a diagnostic adjunct for use in high-risk populations and suspicious mucosal lesions. OralCDx is useful in assessment of dysplastic changes in clinically suspicious lesions; however, there are insufficient data meeting the inclusion criteria to assess usefulness in innocuous mucosal lesions. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of visually based examination adjuncts. Practical Implications. Given the lack of data on the effectiveness of adjunctive cancer detection techniques in general dental practice settings, clinicians must rely on a thorough oral mucosal examination supported by specialty referral and/or tissue biopsy for OPML diagnosis.
在过去几十年中,出现了一些有助于早期发现口腔癌前病变和恶性病变(OPML)的辅助技术。
作者对英文文献进行了系统综述,以评估甲苯胺蓝(TB)、含TBlue的ViziLite Plus(Zila制药公司,凤凰城)、ViziLite(Zila制药公司)、Microlux DL(AdDent公司,康涅狄格州丹伯里)、Orascoptic DK(Orascoptic公司,Kerr公司旗下,威斯康星州米德尔顿)、VELscope(LED Dental公司,加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省白石)和OralCDx(Oral CDx实验室,纽约州 Suffern)刷检活检的有效性。他们从23篇符合纳入和排除标准的文章中提取了与研究设计、研究组的抽样和特征、干预措施、报告的结果以及辅助检查的诊断准确性相关的数据,包括组织学结果的可用性。
关于TB的证据基础最为广泛。关于ViziLite、含TBlue的ViziLite Plus和OralCDx的研究数量有限。对VELscope的研究主要是为了评估已知OPML病变的边缘。作者未找到关于Microlux DL或Orascoptic DK的研究。研究设计在应用于一般临床实践方面存在各种局限性,包括使用高风险人群和专家检查者。
有证据表明,TB作为用于高风险人群和可疑黏膜病变的诊断辅助手段是有效的。OralCDx有助于评估临床可疑病变中的发育异常变化;然而,符合纳入标准的数据不足以评估其在无害黏膜病变中的有用性。总体而言,没有足够的证据支持或反驳基于视觉的检查辅助手段的使用。实际意义。鉴于在一般牙科临床实践环境中缺乏辅助癌症检测技术有效性的数据,临床医生必须依靠全面彻底的口腔黏膜检查,并辅以专科转诊和/或组织活检来诊断OPML。