Abstract: Eugenia dysenterica is a Brazilian tree investigated for its properties and bioactive compounds, which are believed to have both pharmacological and phytochemical therapeutic effects. The leaves of this tree contain tannins, flavonoids, terpenes, and saponins, with reportedly beneficial effects to the human body. Despite these therapeutic applications, its effects have never been tested on oral tissues. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and antioxidant effects and the anti-inflammatory and repair properties of the acetone fraction of E. dysenterica on primary culture of human gingival fibroblasts and on the immortalized murine macrophage cell line (RAW 264.7). For this purpose, a metabolic activity assay, a wound healing assay, a nitric oxide assay, and RT-qPCR were performed. The assays revealed a cytoprotective effect of this plant, suggested by the increase in the expression of SOD1 and NRF2. An antioxidant potential effect was observed in the DPPH• assay. However, the fraction of E. dysenterica did not show anti-inflammatory activity. In conclusion, Eugenia dysenterica may promote cytoprotection when associated with chlorhexidine digluconate because of its antioxidant effect. However, additional studies are necessary on other human dental tissues using other parts of the plant in order to develop a possible mouthwash to assist patients with oral disorders.

RESUMO Objetivo: avaliar os efeitos da trolamina na prevenção ou no tratamento da radiodermatite. Método: revisão sistemática e meta-análise. Em janeiro de 2016, foram desenvolvidas estratégias detalhadas de busca individual para Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed e Web of Science. Também foram realizadas buscas manuais para encontrar referências adicionais. Se utilizou Google Scholar para buscar a literatura cinzenta. Dois investigadores leram os títulos e resumos de cada referência cruzada de forma independente. O risco de viés dos estudos incluídos foi analisado com a ferramenta Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. A qualidade das evidências e a classificação da força das recomendações foram avaliadas mediante os Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: foram identificados sete ensaios clínicos controlados. Os controles utilizados foram calêndula, placebo, preferência institucional / atenção padrão, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™ e Lipiderm™. Os estudos foram agrupados utilizando a frequência de eventos e o índice de risco com intervalos de confiança de 95% em subgrupos, de acordo com a graduação da radiodermatite. Conclusão: com base nos estudos incluídos nesta revisão, a trolamina não pode ser considerada um produto padronizado para a prevenção ou o tratamento da radiodermatite em pacientes com câncer de mama e cabeça e pescoço.

ABSTRACT Objective: to evaluate the effects of trolamine in the prevention or treatment of radiation dermatitis. Method: systematic review and meta-analysis. Detailed individual search strategies for Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were developed in January 2016. A manual search was also performed to find additional references. A grey literature search was executed by using Google Scholar. Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts from every cross-reference. The risk of bias of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of evidence and grading of strength of recommendations was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: seven controlled clinical trials were identified. The controls used were calendula, placebo, institutional preference / usual care, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™, and Lipiderm™. The studies were pooled using frequency of events and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, in subgroups according to radiation dermatitis graduation. Conclusion: based on the studies included in this review, trolamine cannot be considered as a standardized product to prevent or treat radiation dermatitis in patients with breast and head and neck cancer.

RESUMEN Objetivo: evaluar los efectos de la trolamina en la prevención o el tratamiento de la radiodermatitis. Método: revisión sistemática y meta-análisis. En enero de 2016 se desarrollaron estrategias detalladas de búsqueda individual para Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed y Web of Science. También se realizaron búsquedas manuales para encontrar referencias adicionales. Se utilizó Google Scholar para buscar literatura gris. Dos investigadores leyeron los títulos y los resúmenes de cada referencia cruzada independientemente. El riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos fue analizado por la herramienta Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. La calidad de la evidencia y la clasificación de la fuerza de las recomendaciones se evaluó mediante los Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: se identificaron siete ensayos clínicos controlados. Los controles utilizados fueron caléndula, placebo, preferencia institucional / atención habitual, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™ y Lipiderm™. Los estudios se agruparon utilizando la frecuencia de eventos y la razón de riesgo con intervalos de confianza del 95%, en subgrupos según la graduación de radiodermatitis. Conclusión: con base en los estudios incluidos en esta revisión, la trolamina no puede considerarse un producto estandarizado para prevenir o tratar la radiodermatitis en pacientes con cáncer de mama y cabeza y cuello.

ABSTRACT Objective: to evaluate the effects of trolamine in the prevention or treatment of radiation dermatitis. Method: systematic review and meta-analysis. Detailed individual search strategies for Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were developed in January 2016. A manual search was also performed to find additional references. A grey literature search was executed by using Google Scholar. Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts from every cross-reference. The risk of bias of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of evidence and grading of strength of recommendations was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: seven controlled clinical trials were identified. The controls used were calendula, placebo, institutional preference / usual care, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™, and Lipiderm™. The studies were pooled using frequency of events and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, in subgroups according to radiation dermatitis graduation. Conclusion: based on the studies included in this review, trolamine cannot be considered as a standardized product to prevent or treat radiation dermatitis in patients with breast and head and neck cancer.

RESUMEN Objetivo: evaluar los efectos de la trolamina en la prevención o el tratamiento de la radiodermatitis. Método: revisión sistemática y meta-análisis. En enero de 2016 se desarrollaron estrategias detalladas de búsqueda individual para Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed y Web of Science. También se realizaron búsquedas manuales para encontrar referencias adicionales. Se utilizó Google Scholar para buscar literatura gris. Dos investigadores leyeron los títulos y los resúmenes de cada referencia cruzada independientemente. El riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos fue analizado por la herramienta Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. La calidad de la evidencia y la clasificación de la fuerza de las recomendaciones se evaluó mediante los Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: se identificaron siete ensayos clínicos controlados. Los controles utilizados fueron caléndula, placebo, preferencia institucional / atención habitual, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™ y Lipiderm™. Los estudios se agruparon utilizando la frecuencia de eventos y la razón de riesgo con intervalos de confianza del 95%, en subgrupos según la graduación de radiodermatitis. Conclusión: con base en los estudios incluidos en esta revisión, la trolamina no puede considerarse un producto estandarizado para prevenir o tratar la radiodermatitis en pacientes con cáncer de mama y cabeza y cuello.

RESUMO Objetivo: avaliar os efeitos da trolamina na prevenção ou no tratamento da radiodermatite. Método: revisão sistemática e meta-análise. Em janeiro de 2016, foram desenvolvidas estratégias detalhadas de busca individual para Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed e Web of Science. Também foram realizadas buscas manuais para encontrar referências adicionais. Se utilizou Google Scholar para buscar a literatura cinzenta. Dois investigadores leram os títulos e resumos de cada referência cruzada de forma independente. O risco de viés dos estudos incluídos foi analisado com a ferramenta Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. A qualidade das evidências e a classificação da força das recomendações foram avaliadas mediante os Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Resultados: foram identificados sete ensaios clínicos controlados. Os controles utilizados foram calêndula, placebo, preferência institucional / atenção padrão, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™ e Lipiderm™. Os estudos foram agrupados utilizando a frequência de eventos e o índice de risco com intervalos de confiança de 95% em subgrupos, de acordo com a graduação da radiodermatite. Conclusão: com base nos estudos incluídos nesta revisão, a trolamina não pode ser considerada um produto padronizado para a prevenção ou o tratamento da radiodermatite em pacientes com câncer de mama e cabeça e pescoço.

The aim of this study was to compare clinical staging and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging for oral cancer, and to assess inter-observer agreement between oral and medical radiologists. A total of 10 patients diagnosed with oral cancer were assessed before treatment. A head and neck surgeon performed clinical TNM staging. Two medical radiologists and two oral radiologists performed a new staging assessment by interpreting MRI scans, without prior knowledge of the clinical staging. They evaluated the extent of the primary tumor (T), metastasis to regional lymph nodes (N) and grouping by stages. The data were analyzed using the Kappa Index. There was significant agreement (p < 0.05) between the clinical and MRI staging assessments made by one oral radiologist for N stage, and between those made by one medical radiologist for the T and N stages and for the grouping by stages. In the MRI assessment, there was significant agreement among all four observers for both T stage and grouping by stages. For the N stage, there was no significant agreement between one oral radiologist and one medical radiologist or between both medical radiologists. There was significant agreement among the remaining radiologists. There was no agreement between the clinical and MRI staging. These results indicate the importance of using MRI for the diagnosis of oral cancer. Training initiatives and calibration of medical and oral radiologists should be promoted to provide an improved multidisciplinary approach to oral cancer.