4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: Relative frequency of oral mucosal lesions in children, a scoping review

期刊

ORAL DISEASES
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 193-203

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13112

关键词

child; frequency; mouth diseases; oral manifestations; oral pathology

资金

  1. American Academy of Oral Medicine
  2. European Association of Oral Medicine
  3. British Society for Oral Medicine
  4. Oral Diseases
  5. Henry Schein Cares
  6. Colgate
  7. Xerostomia
  8. Dermtreat
  9. World Dental Education Foundation
  10. Unilever

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To detail a scoping review on the global and regional relative frequencies of oral mucosal disorders in the children based on both clinical studies and those reported from biopsy records. Materials and Methods A literature search was completed from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2018 using PubMed and EMBASE. Results Twenty clinical studies (sample size: 85,976) and 34 studies from biopsy services (40,522 biopsies) were included. Clinically, the most frequent conditions were aphthous ulcerations (1.82%), trauma-associated lesions (1.33%) and herpes simplex virus (HSV)-associated lesions (1.33%). Overall, the most commonly biopsied lesions were mucoceles (17.12%), fibrous lesions (9.06%) and pyogenic granuloma (4.87%). By WHO geographic region, the pooled relative frequencies of the most common oral lesions were similar between regions in both clinical and biopsy studies. Across regions, geographic tongue (migratory glossitis), HSV lesions, fissured tongue and trauma-associated ulcers were the most commonly reported paediatric oral mucosal lesions in clinical studies, while mucoceles, fibrous lesions and pyogenic granuloma were the most commonly biopsied lesions. Conclusions The scoping review suggests data from the clinical studies and biopsy records shared similarities in the most commonly observed mucosal lesions in children across regions. In addition, the majority of lesions were benign in nature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据