4.6 Article

Periodontal health in breast cancer patients on aromatase inhibitors versus postmenopausal controls: a longitudinal analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 659-667

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12562

关键词

aromatase inhibitors; biological markers; breast neoplasms; periodontal attachment loss; postmenopause; women health

资金

  1. Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (University of Michigan) [UL1RR024986]
  2. National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) (Bethesda, Maryland) [1K23DEO21779]
  3. Rackham Graduate Student Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThis study was conducted to determine periodontal changes in postmenopausal breast cancer (BCa) survivors using aromatase inhibitors (AI) as compared to postmenopausal women without BCa. MethodsAn 18-month prospective examination of periodontal health in postmenopausal women (29 receiving AI therapy; 29 women without BCa) was conducted at University of Michigan. Comprehensive periodontal examinations including alveolar bone height (ABH) were conducted at baseline, 6, 12, and 18months. Bisphosphonate, vitamin D, and calcium supplementation were collected via chart review. Linear mixed models were utilized to investigate the relationship between AI and periodontal measures. ResultsAromatase inhibitor users had significantly deeper probing depths, more dental plaque and clinical attachment loss as compared to controls at the 6, 12, and 18month study visits (p<0.05). ABH loss was seen over time within the AI group. The linear mixed model showed a significant effect of time as well as an interaction between aromatase inhibitor use and calcium supplement status. AI users taking calcium experienced less ABH loss over the study than AI users not taking calcium (p=0.005). ConclusionAromatase inhibitor therapy has a negative impact on the periodontal health of postmenopausal BCa patients. Calcium supplementation appears to mitigate ABH loss in women on AI.

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