Oral health effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Drooling is a major morbidity in several neurological diseases. Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections have been used to manage this condition. However, by decreasing salivary flow, BoNT injections may result in an increased risk of caries and other oral adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to assess whether, in patients with drooling, intraglandular BoNT injections are associated with increased dental caries development, modifications on salivary composition (oral pH, buffering capacity and osmolality) and cariogenic bacterial load.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review, searching PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus for all experimental and observational studies reporting on adverse effects of intraglandular BoNT injections in patients with drooling. Primary study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers. No studies were excluded based on their language, publication status or date of publication. Studies' quality was based on revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Meta-analysis was not performed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1025 studies, of which 5 were included. Two studies were two randomized controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies. None of the included studies found BoNT injections to be associated with dental caries development or with significant reductions in oral pH. One of the included primary studies even observed an increase in salivary buffer capacity. One study found an increase in Lactobacilli counts. As for the risk of bias, two studies were classified as having a critical risk, two as high risk and one as having some concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no evidence that, in patients with drooling, BoNT injections associate with increased risk of dental caries or disturbances in oral pH or salivary buffering capacity. However, the included primary studies had important limitations and differences in their methodologies.