Maxillofacial Prosthetics - Radiation Effects - Salivary Glands, Bone & Teeth

Changes in volume, viscosity, pH, and organic and inorganic constituents of saliva are manifest following irradiation of major salivary glands predisposing the patient to caries, periodontal disease and fungal infestation.  Bone becomes a hypoxic, hypocellular and hypocellular tissue predisposing to osteoradionecrosis.   The periodontal ligament likewise becomes hypocellular and hypovascular predisposing to attachment loss and periodontal infections which can lead to osteoradionecrosis.  The mechanisms associated with these tissue changes are becoming increasingly clear.  This program provides an in depth analysis of these changes and their clinical manifestations.

Maxillofacial Prosthetics – Radiation Effects – Salivary Glands, Bone and Teeth — Course Transcript

• 1. 4. Radiation Effects – Salivary Glands, Bone and Teeth John Beumer III, DDS, MS Eric Sung, DDS Division of Advanced Prosthodontics, Biomaterials and Hospital Dentistry and The Jane and Jerry Weintraub Center for Reconstructive Biotechnology, UCLA School of DentistryAll rights reserved. This program of instruction is covered by copyright ©. Nopart of this program of instruction may be reproduced, recorded, or transmitted,by any means, electronic, digital, photographic, mechanical, etc., or by anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without prior permission of the authors.
• 2. Radiation Effects – Salivary Glands, Bone and Teeth
 Table of Contentsv  Salivary glands v  Damage – Mechanism of action v  Oral flora changes and radiation caries fungal infections v  Xerostomia v  Managementv  Bone v  Mechanism of damage v  Late effects v  Cellularity v  Remodeling apparatus v  Osteolytic activityv  Periodontal ligamentv  Teeth v  Pulpal changes v  Dental development
• 3. Salivary Damage-Mechanism of Actionv  Salivary gland parenchyma Normal salivary gland consists of acinar cells, myoepithelial cells, and a ductal system consisting of striated ducts and intercalated ducts.v  Primitive glandular stem cells, found in the ductal elements are responsible for regeneration of Irradiated salivary gland these cell populations.v  Reduced production of saliva is ultimately secondary to the sterilization of these cell populations by irradiation (Konings et al, 2005).
• 4. Salivary Damage-Mechanism of Actionv  Reduction in flow observable the first Normal salivary Gland Normal Salivary gland week of therapy.v  Changes occur in volume, viscosity, pH and buffering capacity, inorganic and organic constituents after therapy (Driezen et al, 1977; Brown et al, 1976; Marks et al, 1981; Malkkonen et al, 1986; Valdez et al, 1993; Almstahl et al, 2001). Irradiated salivary glandv  Mean output can be reduced by from 86-93% (Curtis et al, 1976; Driezen et al, 1977; Marunick et al, 1991)v  These changes predispose to caries, fungal infections, periodontal diseasev  Swallowing and speech are also Irradiated Salivary Gland impaired.
• 5. Salivary Damage-Mechanism of Actionv  Early on apoptosis is limited Normal salivary gland to 2-3% of all cell types (Paardekoper et al, 1998)v  Howeverfunction of secretory cells compromised v Secretory responses are reduced by 50% by the first few treatments (Coppes et al, Irradiated salivary gland 2000). v Probably secondary to impairment of signal transduction by the plasma membrane of the secretory Normal Salivary Gland cells (Paardekoper et al, 1998; Coppes et al, 2001)
• 6. Salivary damage-Mechanism of Actionv  During therapy and for a few Normal salivary gland months thereafter some evidence of recovery of acinar cells is observedv  However above 3000 cGy there is a dramatic reduction of secretory cells accompanied by progressive fibrosis and compromise of the vasculature Irradiated salivary gland v  Function returns to pretreatment levels if dose is less than 2600 cGy (Eisbruch et al, 1999; Eisbruch et al, 2003) v  In young patients receiving doses of 35-4500 cGy, damage is reversible Irradiated v  At doses above 55 cGy there is no salivary gland recovery of function (Franzen et al, 1992; Eisbruch et al, 1999; Roesink et al, 1999)
• 7. Salivary damage-Mechanism of Actionv  Reduced function is Normal salivary gland probably due to the inability of stem cells to replace aging and dying parenchymal cells (Konings et al, Irradiated salivary gland 2005). Irradiated salivary gland
• 8. Salivary Damage – Mechanism of Action Mean Dose Concept vs the Volume Effect Irradiated Salivary Gland Normal Salivary Glandv  Mean dose may not be the ultimate predictor of damage to the salivary glandsv  Late damage to salivary gland parenchyma may be precipitated by secondary events v  Damage can be caused by damage to blood vessels of irradiated portions of the gland supplying the nonirradiated portions (Konings et al, 2005; Konings et al, 2006)
• 9. Radiation Induced XerostomiaEffects on oral health and function and quality of lifev  Increasedrisk of caries and periodontal disease and fungal infections v  Oral flora changesv  Difficulty in swallowingv  Impaired speech articulationv  Difficulty in sleepingv  Impaired tolerance of complete dentures (loss of peripheral seal and lubrication)v  Compromise of taste acuity
• 10. Radiation cariesThis patient received 6800 cGy for asquamous carcinoma of the tonsil.Several years prior to radiation she hadseveral porcelain veneers placed.Closer exam reveals that several had becomedetached and all had become severelyundermined with caries. These teeth are beyond restoration and the clinician should direct his/her efforts toward preventing the infection from developing into an osteoradionecrosis.
• 11. Clinical significance of radiation • Acute and chronicinduced xerstomia fungal infections” Changes in the oral flora predispose to: • Radiation caries Compromised tolerance of complete dentures • Increased friction at the denture-mucosal interface • Difficulty in obtaining and maintaining peripheral seal
• 12. Changes in the oral floraSignificant population shifts in oral flora v  Cariogenic organisms gain at the expense of noncariogenic organisms v Increasesseen in the relative numbers of Streptococcus mutans, lactobacillus (Llory et al, 1971; Brown et al, 1972; Brown et al, 1975; Keene et al, 1981; Keene and Flemming, 1987; Epstein et al, 1991) v  Significant increases in fungal organisms (Brown et al, 1975)
• 13. Changes in the oral floraSignificant increases in the populations of: v Streptococcus mutans v Actinomyces v Lactobacillus These changes predispose the patient to radiation caries. The caries progresses rapidly and in most patients becomes so extensive that it is nonrestorable. Eventually, teeth fracture at the gingival margin.
• 14. CRT – Radiation fields, xerostomia and and morbidityHigh posterior fields • Risk of caries is high • Risk of osteoradionecrosis is low Opposed mandibular fields • Risk of caries is reduced • Risk of osteoradionecrosis is high
• 15. Changes in the oral flora The numbers of fungal organisms increase 100 fold As a result, chronic candidiasis, is very common after therapy. It presents in a variety of forms, as seen here. Nystatin is drug of choice, and it can be dispensed in a number of configurations including lozenges, powder, creams and an oral suspension.
• 16. Changes in the oral flora Acute candidiasis is quite rare after the completion of therapy. Note the fungal colonies developing on the mucosal surfaces (arrows).Nystatin remains the least costly and most effective antifungal agent. Foracute forms of candidiasis, vaginal suppositories (100,000 units persuppository, Sig.- tid), used as an oral lozenge are preferred over thenystatin oral lozenges because of the latter’s high glucose content.
• 17. Management of Radiation Induced XerostomiaIdeal characteristics of a saliva substitute v Provide a protective coating for the oral mucosa v Capable of remineralization v Maintain normal oral flora patterns v Be long lastingSaliva substitutesv  Carboxymethylcellulose based v  Mucin based v  Water based v  Glycerin based Attempts have made to formulate salivary substitutes (Shannon et al, 1977; Shannon et al, 1978; Visch et al, 1986). Patient responses have been mixed and most patients prefer increased water intake.
• 18. Management of Radiation Induced Xerostomia Saliva substitutes v  Carboxymethylcellulose based v  Mucin based v  Water based v  Glycerin based These agents have been ineffective for the most part, although they have been useful in selected patients in relieving night time discomfort. They also may aid the severe xerostomic patient who experiences difficulty with speech articulation.
• 19. Salivary stimulantsAttempts to stimulate salivary activity afterradiation have been disappointingv  Most common drugs used: v Pilocarpine v Cevimelinev  In most studies, measured flow may be increased but rarely is relief of symptoms noted (Fox et al, 1986; Greenspan and Daniels, 1989; Johnson et al, 1993; Rieke et al, 1995)v Most of the benefit is probably secondary to the stimulation of minor salivary glands since they are more resistant to and recover more effectively from the effects of radiation (Niedemeirer et al, 1998)
• 20. Salivary stimulantsPilocarpine v Requires residual salivary gland parenchyma to be effective v Can be dispensed in liquid form used as a mouth rinse (1 mg per cc) or in tablet form (5 mg) v Dosage above 20 mg will induce toxic side effects v Toxic side effects include increased intestinal motility v Marketed as SalagenThis drug may be useful in patients who have been treated with CRT and with radiationtreatment volumes that spare significant amounts of salivary gland parenchyma but has notbeen useful in patients with opposed lateral facial fields that are used to treat tumors of thesoft palate, tonsil, nasopharynx etc. The latter may have little or no residual salivary glandparenchyma.
• 21. Salivary stimulants Cevimeline v Requires residual salivary gland parenchyma to be effective v Toxic side effects include increased intestinal motility, excessive sweating, nauseaThis drug has a similar mechanism of action as pilocarpine and like pilocarpinemay be useful in patients who have been treated with radiation treatmentvolumes that spare significant amounts of salivary gland parenchyma (i.e.,opposed mandibular fields). It has been used in Sjogren’s syndrome patientswith some success. Clinical trials are now being conducted in irradiatedpatients.
• 22. Salivary gland protective agentsv  Amifostine (Antonadou et al, 2002)v  Pilocarpine (Roesink et al, 1999, Warde et al, 2002; Burlage et al, 2008)
• 23. Salivary gland protective agentsAmifostinev Has been shown to moderately improve subjective symptomsv A free radical scavengerv May limit damage to salivary parenchyma during radiationv  Side effects include hypotension, nausea and vomitingv  Issues •  Questionable rationale •  Questionable study designs •  Possible protective effect on tumor cells (Vissink et al, 2003) •  Cost Clinical results have been disappointing.
• 24. Salivary gland protective agentsPilocarpine v  Administered before and during radiation therapy to limit radiation damage (Roesink et al, 1999; Warde et al, 2002; Burlage et al, 2008) v  Animal experiments have shown promise but human data is indeterminate. Some have shown no benefit (Warde et al, 2002) while others have shown some benefit (Burlage et al, 2008) v  Others (Valdez et al, 1993) have suggested that the drug affects only the nonirradiated salivary gland parenchyma
• 25. Stem cell transplantation and enhancementReduced saliva production is ultimately secondary to the loss of salivary stemcells which preclude replacement of aging acinar and ductal cells. Strategiescurrently being tested in animal models include: v  Transplants (Lombaert et al, 2008a) v  Secure salivary gland tissue prior to irradiation, retrieve and culture the stem cells and transplant them back into the subject after radiation
• 26. Stem cell transplantation and enhancementReduced saliva production is ultimately secondary to the loss of salivary stemcells which preclude replacement of aging acinar and ductal cells. Strategiescurrently being tested in animal models include: v  Stimulate surviving salivary gland stem cells with bone marrow cells (Lombaert et al, 2006; Lombaert et al, 2008b) v  This option is limited by the number of stem cells surviving radiation
• 27. Stem cell transplantation and enhancementReduced saliva production is ultimately secondary to the loss of salivary stemcells which preclude replacement of aging acinar and ductal cells. Strategiescurrently being tested in animal models include: v  Increase salivary gland stem cell populations prior to radiation (Lombaert et al, 2008c) v  This has been accomplished in an animal model by administering keratinocyte growth factor (N23-KGF) prior to radiation
• 28. Maximizing Postradiation Salivary Flowv  Best results achieved by sparing salivary glands from high dose radiation (Mira et al, 1981; Roesink et al, 2001; Vissink et al, 2003)v  >50% of the parotid glands must be outside the radiation fields in order to prevent severe xerostomia (Mira et al, 1981)
• 29. Means of sparing major salivary glands from high dose radiation with IMRT Theoretically possible but the results have been disappointing to date. Source: www.beaumonthospital.comIntensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) may reduce thedose to salivary glands. However the dose must be reduced toless than 40 Gy and this may not be possible in many patients .
• 30. Radiation Effects – Bone Mechanism of Damage (Delanian and LeFaix, 2004; Lyons and Ghazali, 2008)Damage to bone is the result of dysregulation offibroblastic activity v Initially, endothelial cells damaged that lead increased cytokine production v These cytokines in turn promote the release of inflammatory cytokines v Loss of small vessel network v Fibroblasts transformed into myofibroblasts v Unregulated chronic activation of these myofibroblasts leads to progressive fibrosis
• 31. Late Effects – Bone (Silverman and Chierci, 1965; Rohrer et al, 1979)v  Reduced vasculature v  Loss of osteoprogenitor cells v  Fatty and fibrous degeneration v  Periosteum- Acellular and loss of vasculature v  Occlusion of the inferior alveolar arteryRoot Trabecular bonesurface MarrowSeverity of changes depends on dose
• 32. Late Effects – Bone (Silverman and Chierci, 1965; Rohrer et al, 1979)Severity of tissue changes depends on dose. Thehuman specimen shown was exposed to in excessof 70Gy.Root Trabecular bonesurface Marrow
• 33. Late Effects – BoneClinical manifestationsv  Compromised remodeling and repair, ie healing of extraction sites, osseointegrationv  Response to infection, ie risk of Lamellar bone •  Loss of central artery in osteoradionecrosis secondary Haversian systems to a dental infection. •  Death of osteocytes Root Trabecular bone surface Marrow
• 34. Late effects –Lamellar Bonev  Loss of central artery in Haversian systems (red arrow)v  Loss of osteocytes from their lacunae (yellow arrows) Such bone is essentially nonvital and lacking the capacity for repair and remodeling
• 35. Remodeling apparatus -Osteolytic Activity Following high dose radiation some osteoclasts remain as shown in this human specimen. The mandible in Osteoclast this patient received in excess of 70Gy with CRT via opposed lateral mandible fields.Isolated osteoclasts represent either the survivingremnants of the multicellular unit of the remodelingapparatus or find their way into irradiated bone viathe circulation mediated by macrophages.
• 36. Remodeling apparatus – Osteolytic Activity v This patient received 70 Gy to the mandible for an anterior floor of mouth Sq Ca. v Note the dramatic change Preradiation in the prominence of the cortical plates (arrows) and the differences in trabecular patterns between preradiaton and postradiation radiographs. v Osteolytic activity seems Postradiation more prominent in patients treated with chemoRT
• 37. Remodeling apparatus – Osteolytic Activity v  Spontaneous fractures of the mandible associated with concomitant chemotherapy and CRT. All three patients received approximately 70 Gy a b v  All patients received 70 Gy. a and b: Neither was associated with dentition. c: Bilateral fractures through ramus and angle secondary to chemoRT. They were not related to or precipitated by dentition.c
• 38. Clinical significance of compromised remodeling apparatusPreradiation extraction of teeth within the clinical treatment volume When extracting teeth in the field prior to radiation radical alveolectomies need to performed in order to avoid the irregular alveolar ridge contours seen below. Even though the alveolar ridge mucosa is covered with healthy mucosa, its irregular boney contour precludes the use of complete dentures when the dose to the mandibular bearing surfaces is high (above 65 Gy).
• 39. Clinical significance of compromised remodeling apparatus Osseointegration b c a a: Normal control specimen. Note both contact and distance osteogenesis. b: Specimen exposed to equivalent to 52 Gy. Note dramatic reduction is osteogenesis. c: Specimen exposed to 58 Gy. Note further reduction of osteogenesis (Courtesy of R. Nishimura).
• 40. Radiation Effects – Periodontium Changes in the periodontal ligament(Silverman and Chierci, 1965; Rohrer et al, 1979; Fugita et al, 1986; Epstein et al, 1998) v  Loss of cellularity v  Loss of vasculature v  Disorientation of the periodontal ligament fibersResult: The periodontium is a prime pathway for infection. 50 Gy >70 Gy This patient developed an osteoradionecrosis 4 years post radiation secondary to a periodontal abscess
• 41. Radiation Effects – Periodontiumv  Lacking blood supply, the bone of the lamina dura becomes acellular. Note the empty lacunae.v  Cementum likewise, becomes acellular and its capacity for repair is compromised. Given cementum’s compromised capacity of<70 Gy regeneration and repair, periodontal procedures, such as deep scaling and flap surgery, are therefore contraindicated in heavily irradiated dentition.
• 42. Radiation Effects – Periodontium (Floral changes?)v  Thereappears to an acceleration of attachment loss in patients treated with chemoRT
• 43. Teethv  Organic component of enamel appears unaffected (Jansma et al, 1990)v  Microhardness of dentin is affected at the dentin enamel junction (Keilbassa et al, 1997; Keilbassa et al, 2006) v  This phenomenon may be partially responsible for the high rate of cervical caries in dentitions within the clinical target volume
• 44. Teeth – Pulp Changes v  Atrophy of the odontoblastic layer and an inability to fabricate secondary dentin v  Loss of vasculature and fibrosis v  Formation of osteodentin and pulp stones
• 45. Teeth – Pulp Changesv  Atrophy of the odontoblastic layer and an inability to fabricate secondary dentin at levels of exposure as low as 25 Gyv  Loss of vasculature and fibrosisv  Formation of osteodentin and pulp stones Osteodentin Pulp stones
• 46. Clinical Implications of Pulpal Changes v  Response to infectious or mechanical injury to the pulp is compromised v  Pulp capping is contraindicated. If a pulp exposure is encountered during cavity preparation a root canal should be performed v  Pulpal pain mechanisms are altered and patients with advanced caries are generally asymptomatic
• 47. Dental development v  Levels as low as 2500 cGy effect tooth development (Gorlin and Meskin, 1963; Pietrokovski and Menczel, 1966; Dahllof et al, 1994; Kaste et al, 1994) v  Changes reflect a variety of defects that indicate the several stages of development existing during the course of radiotherapy This patient is 16 years of age. He received 3600 cGy of radiation when he was 4 years of age for treatment of a rhabdomyosarcoma.
• 48. Systemic sequellae of Radiation of Head and Neck TumorsRadiation induced cancers (Hall, 1995) v  SarcomasCarotid atheromas (Zidar, 1997; Freymiller et al, 2000)Progressive fibrosis may lead to (Eisele, 1991; Kang, 2000; Sharabi, 2003; Nguyen et al, 2006, 2008; Nguyen, 2009) v  Difficulty swallowing v  Vocal cord paralysis v  Aspiration pneumoniaHeart (Basavaraju, 2002; Gyennes, 1998; Kahn, 2001) v  Valve leaflets may thicken and calcify v  Valve orifices narrow v  Acellerated form of athersclerosis v  Compromise of microvasculature
• 49. v  Visitffofr.org for hundreds of additional lectures on Complete Dentures, Implant Dentistry, Removable Partial Dentures, Esthetic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Prosthetics.v  The lectures are free.v  Our objective is to create the best and most comprehensive online programs of instruction in Prosthodontics
• 50. Referencesl  Scully C and Epstein J. (1996) Oral health care for the cancer patient. Oral Oncol Eur J Cancer 32:281-92.l  Dumbrigue H, Sandow P, Nguyen K, et al. (2000) Salivary epidermal growth factor levels decrease in patients receiving radiation therapy to the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 89:710-16.l  Silverman S. (2003) Complications of treatment. in Oral Cancer 5th edition ed S. Silverman BC Decker Inc. Hamilton, London pp 113-128.l  Vissink A, Jansma F, Spijkervet F et al. (2003) Oral sequellae of head and neck radiotherapy. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 14:199-.l  Vissink A, Burlage F, Spijkervet J, et al. (2003) Prevention and treatment of the consequences of head and neck radiotherapy. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 14:213-225l  Sonis S. (2004) Oral mucositis in cancer therapy. J Support Oncol 2:3-8.l  Sonis S. (1998) Mucositis as a biological process: A new hyposthesis for the development of chemotherapy induced stomatotoxicity. Oral Oncol 34:39-43.l  Denham J, Peters L, Johansen J, et al. (1999) Do acute mucosal reactions lead to consequential late reactions in patients with head and neck cancer? Radiother Oncol 52:157-164.
• 51. Referencesl  Spijkervet F, van Saene H, van Saene J, et al. (1990) Mucositis prevention by selective elimination of oral flora in irradiated head and neck cancer patients. J Oral Pathol Med 19:486-9.l  Spijkervet F, van Saene H, van Saene J, et al. (1991) Effect of selective elimination of the oral flora on mucositis in irradiated head and neck patients. J Surg Oncol 46:167.l  Spijkervet, F, van Saene H, Panders A, et al. (1989) Effect of chlorhexidine rinsing on the oropharyngeal ecology in patients with head and neck cancer patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 67:154-161.l  Martin M. (1993) Irradiation mucositis: a reappraisal. Oral Oncol Eur J Cancer 2:81.l  Ramirez-Amador V, Silverman S, Mayer P, et al. (1997) Candidal colonization and oral cnadidiasis in patient undergoing pharyngeal radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 84:149-153.l  Peterman A, Cella D, Glandon G et al. (2001) Mucositis in head and neck cancer: economic and quality of life outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 29:45-51.l  Antonadou D, Pepelassi M, Synodinou M et al. (2002) Prophylactic use of amifostine to prevent radiochemotherapy induced mucositis and xerostomia in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Phys 52:739-47
• 52. Referencesl  Bunzel J, Glatzel M, Kuttner K et al. (2002) Amifostine in simultaneous radio- chemotherapy of advanced head and neck cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 12:4-13l  Law A, Kennedy T, Pellitteri D, et al. (2007) Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous amisfostine in minimizing radiation induced toxicities in patients receiving combined modality treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics. 69:1361-68.l  Sutherland S, Browman G. (2001) Prophylaxsis of oral mucositis in irradiated head cancer patients : a proposed classification scheme of interventions and meta-analysis of randomized-clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49:917-30.l  Makkonen TA, Minn G, Jekunen et al (2000) Granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and sucralfate in prevention of radiation induced mucositis. A prospectifve randomized study. In J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46:525-534.l  Epstein J, Vickers L, Spinelli J, et al. (1992) Efficacy of chlorhexidine and nystatin rrinses in prevention of oral complications in leukemia and bone marrow transplantation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 73:682-689.l  Foote R, Loprinzi C, Frank A, et al. (1994) Randomized trial of a chlorhexidine mouthwash for alleviation of radiation-induced mucositis. J Clin Oncol 12:2630-33.a
• 53. Referencesl  Dodd M, Larson P, Dibble S, et al. (1996) Randomized clinical trial of chlorhexidine versus placebo for prevention of oral mucositis in patient receiving chemotherapy. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:921-7.l  Adamietz I, Hahn R, Bottcher H et al. (1998) Prophylaxe der radiochemootherapeutishch bedingten mucositis. Strahlenther Onkol 174:149-55.l  Symonds R, McIlroy P, Khorrami P, et al. (1996) The reduction of radiation mucositis by selective decontamination antibiotic pastilles: A placebo controlled double blind trial. Br J Cancer 74:312-17l  Wijers O, Levendag P, Harms E, et al. (2001) Mucositis reduction by selective elimination of oral flora in irradiated cancers of the head and neck: A placebo controlled double blind randomized study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:343-52.l  Mc Ilroy P. (2007) Radiation mucositis: A new approach to prevention and treatment. Eur J Cancer Care 5:153-58.l  El-Sayed S, Epstein J, Minish E, et al. (2002) A pilot study evaluating the safety and microbiologic efficacy of an economically viable antimicrobial lozenge in patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy. Head and Neck 24:6-15.
• 54. Referencesl  Beumer J, Curtis T, Harrison R. (1979a) Radiation therapy of the oral cavity: Sequellae and management. Part I. Head Neck Surg 1:301-12.l  Cooper J, Fu K, Marks J, Silverman S. (1995) Late effects of radiation therapy in the head and neck region. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:1141-64l  Dion M, Hussey D, Osborn J. (1990) Preliminary results of a pilot study of pentoxifylline in treatment of late radiation soft tissue necrosis. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 19:401-7.l  Ruo, Redds MG, Allis S. (2006) Radiotherapy – induced taste impediment. Cancer 32:541-7l  Sandow P, Hejrat-Yazdi, Heft M. (2006) Taste loss and recovery following radiation therapy. J Dent Res 85:608-11.l  Mirza N, Machtay M, Devine P, etal. (2008) Gustatory impairment in patient undergoing head and neck irradiation. Laryngoscope 118:24-31.l  Conger A. (1973) Loss and recovery of taste acuity in patients irradiated to the oral cavity. Radiat Res 53:338-47.l  Conger A. (1969) Radiation and aging effect on taste structure and function. Radiat Res 37:31-49.l  Silverman JE, Weber CS, Silverman S Jr. (1983) Zinc supplementation and taste in head and neck cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy. J Oral Med 38:14-16.
• 55. Referencesl  Yamshita H, Nakagawa K, Tago M, et al. (2006) Taste dysfunction in patients receiving radiotherapy. Head and Neck 28:508-16.l  Matsuo R. 2000. Role of saliva in the maintenance of taste sensitivity. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:216-29.l  Henkin R, Talal N, Larson A, et al. (1972) Abnormalities of taste and smell in Sjorgren’s syndrome. Ann Int Med 76:375-83.l  Ripamonte C, Zecca E, Brunelli C, et al. (1998) A randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effects of zinc sulfate on cancer patients with taste alterations caused by head and neck irradiation. Cancer 82:1938-45.l  Ophir, D., Gitterman, A., Gross-Isseroff, R. (1988) Changes in smell acuity induced by radiation exposure of the olfactory mucosa. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 114:853-55.l  Engerset A. (1964) Irradiation of lymph nodes and vessels; experiments in rats with reference to cancer therapy. Acta Radiol. 229(supp):5-125l  Sherman JO, O’Brien PH. (1967) Effects of ionizing radiation on normal lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes. Cancer 20:1851-8l  Dijkstra P, Kalk W, Roodenburg J. (2004) Trismus in head and neck oncology: A systematic review. Oral Oncol 40:879-89.
• 56. Referencesl  Goldstein M, Maxymiw WG, Cummings BJ et al. (1999) The effects of antitumor irradiation on mandibular opening and mobility: A prospective study of 58 patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 88:365-73l  Kent L, Brennan M, Noll J, et al. (2008) Radiation induced trismus in head and neck cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 16:305-9.l  Hsiung C-Y, Huang E-Y, Ting H-M, et al. (2008) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: The reduction of radiation-induced trismus. Brit J Radiol 81:809-14.l  Driezen S, Brown L, Handler S, et al. (1976) Radiation induced xerostomia in cancer patients – effect on salivary and serum electrolytes. Cancer 38:273.l  Driezen S, Daly T, Drane J. (1977) Prevention of xerostomia-related dental caries in irradiated cancer patients. J Dent Res 56:99-104.l  Brown L, Driezen S, Rider L, et al. (1976) The effect of radiation- induced xerostomia on salivary lysozyme and immunoglobulin levels. 0ral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 41:83-92.l  Marks J, Davis C, Gottsman V et al. (1981) The effects of radiation on parotid salivary function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 7:1013-19.l  Sodicoff M, Pratt N Shollely M. (1974) Ultrastructural radiation injury of rat parotid gland. Radiat Res 58:196-208.
• 57. Referencesl  Paardekooper G, Cammelli S, Zeilstra L, et al. (1998) Radiation apoptosis in relation to acute impairment of rat salivary gland function. Int J Radiat Biol 73:641-48.l  Coppes R, Zeilstra L, Kampinga H, et al. (2001) Early to late sparing of radiation damage to the parotid gland by adrenergic and muscarinic receptor agonists. Brit J Cancer 85:1055-63.l  Coppes R, Roffel A, Liekele J, et al. (2000) Early radiation effects on muscarnic receptor-induced secretory responsiveness of the parotid gland in the freely moving rat. Radiat Res 153:339-46.l  Konings AW, Coppes RP, Vissink A. On the mechanism of salivary gland radiosensitivity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1187-94.l  Shannon, I., Suddick, R. (1976) Saliva. in Dental Biochemistry ed Lazzari, E Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia pp 201-242.l  Curtis T, Griffith M, Firtell D. (1976) Complete denture prosthodontics for the radiation patient. J Prosthet Dent 36:66-76.l  Marunick M, Seyedsadr M, Ahmad K, et al. (1991) The effect of head and neck cancer treatment on whole salivary flow. J Surg Oncol 48:81-6.l  Eisbruch A, Randall K, Haken T, et al. (1999) Dose, volume and function relationship in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:577-87.
• 58. Referencesl  Eisbruch A, Rhodus N, Rosenthal N, et al. (2003) How should we measure and report radiotherapy-induced xerostomia? Sem Radiat Onc 13:226-34.l  Franzen L, Fungegard U, Ericson T, et al. (1992) Parotid gland function during and following radiotherapy of malignancies in the head and neck. Eur J Cancer 28:457-62.l  Roesink J, Moerland M, Battermann J et al. (2001) Quantitative dose-volume response analysis of changes to parotid gland function after radiotherapy in the head and neck region. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51:938-46.l  Eisbruch A, Kim H, Terrell J, et al. (2001) Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head and cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50:695-704.l  Konings A, Faber H, Cotteleer F, et al. (2005) Secondary radiation damage as the main cause for unexpected volume effects: A histopathologic study of the parotid gland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Physics. 64:98-105.l  Mira J, Fullerton G. Wescott W. (1981) Some factors influencing salivary function when treating with radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:535-41.l  Makkonen T, Tenovuo J, Vilja P et al. (1986) Changes in the protein composition of whole saliva during radiotherapy in patients with oral or pharyngeal cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral 62:270-75.
• 59. Referencesl  Valdez J, Atkinson J, Ship J, et al. (1993) Major salivary gland function in patients with radiation-induced xerostomia: Flow rates and sialochemistry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25:41-7l  Almstahl A, Wikstrom M, Groenink J. (2001) Lactoferrin, amylase and mucin MUC5B and their relation to oral microflora in hyposalivation of different origins. Oral Microbiol Immunol 16:345-52.l  Driezen S, Brown L, Handler S, et al. (1976) Radiation induced xerostomia in cancer patients – effect on salivary and serum electrolytes. Cancer 38:273-8.l  Anderson MW, Izutsu KT, Rice JC. (1981) Parotid pathophysiology following mixed gamma and neutron irradiation of cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 52:495-500.l  Fox P, Vander Van P, Baum B, et al. (1986) Pilocarpine for the treatment of xerostomia associated with salivary gland dysfunction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 61:243-8.l  Greenspan D, Daniels T. (1989) The effectiveness of pilocarpine in post radiation xerostomia. Cancer 59:1123-5.l  Johnson J, Ferretti G, Nethery J, et al. 1993. Oral Pilocarpine for post- irradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. New England J. Med 329:390-5.
• 60. Referencesl  Rieke J, Haferman M, Johnson J, et al. (1995) Oral pilocarpine for radiation- induced xerostomia: Integrated efficacy and safety results from two prospective randomized clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:661-9.l  Niedermeier W, Matthaeus C Meyer et al. (1998) Radiation induced hyposalivation and its treatment with oral pilocarpine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 44:541-9l  Shannon I, McCary B, Starcke E. (1977) A saliva substitute for use by xerostomic patients undergoing radiotherapy to the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 44:656-61.l  Shannon I, Wescott W, Starke E et al. (1978a) Laboratory study of colbalt 60 irradiated human dental enamel. J Oral Med 33:23-7.l  Visch LL, Gravenlmade EJ, Schaub EN et al. (1986) A double blind crossover trial of CMC and mucin containing saliva substitutes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 15:395-400.l  Roesink J, Konings A, Terhaard H et al. (1999) Preservation of the rat parotid function after radiation by prophylactic pilocarpine treatment: Radiation dose dependency and compensatory mechanisms. . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 45:483-9.l  Warde P, O’Sullivan B, Aslanidis J, et al. (2002) A phase III placebo- controlled trial of oral pilocarpine in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54:9-13.
• 61. Referencesl  Burlage F, Roesink J, Kampinga H, et al. (2008) Protection of salivary function by concomitant pilocarpine during radiotherapy: A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Int J Radiation Onc Biol Phys 70:14-22.l  Lombaert I, Wierenga P, Kok T, et al. (2006) Mobilization of bone marrow stem cells by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor ameliorates radiation-induced damage to salivary glands. Clin Cancer Res 12:1804-12.l  Lombaert I, Brunsting J, Wierenga P, et al. (2008a) Rescue of salivary gland function after stem cell transplantation in irradiated glands. Plosone.org vol 3 issue 4 e2063.l  Lombaert I, Brunsting J, Wierenga P et al. (2008b) Cytokine treatment improves parechymal and vascular damage of salivary glands after irradiation. Clin Cancer Res 14:7741-50.l  Lombaert I, Brunsting J, Wierenga, P et al. (2008c) Keratinocyte growth factor prevents radiation damage to salivary glands by expansion of the stem/ progenitor pool. Stem Cells 26:2595.l  Delanian S, Lefaix J. (2004) The radiation-induced fibroatrophic process: Therapeutic perspective via the antioxidant pathway. Radiother Oncol 73:119-131.l  Lyons A and Ghazali N. (2008) Osteoradionecrosis of the jaws: Current understanding of its pathophysiology and treatment. Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:65360.
• 62. Referencesl  Rohrer M, Kim Y, Fayos J. (1979) The effect of cobalt-60 irradiation on monkey mandibles. Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Path 48:424-40.l  Van Merkesteyn J, Bakker D, Borgmeijer-Hoelen A. (1993) Pathogenesis and treatment of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws. Abstracts Int Acad for Oral Onc #3l  Silverman S, Chierici G. (1965) Radiation therapy of oral carcinoma – I. Effects on oral tissues and management of the periodontium. J Periodont 36:478-84.l  Fugita M, Tanimoto K, Wada T. (1986) Early radiographic changes in radiation bone injury. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 61:641-44.l  Epstein J, Lunn R, Le N, Stevenson-Moore P. (1998) Periodontal attachment loss in patients after head and neck radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 86:673-77.l  Beumer J, Harrison R, Sanders B, et al. (1984) Osteoradionecrosis: predisposing factors and outcome of therapy. Head and Neck Surg 6:819-27.l  Yusof Z and Bakri M. (1993) Severe progressive periodontal destruction due to radiation tissue injury. J Periodontol 64:1253-58.l  Castanera T, Jones D, Kimeldorf D. (1963) Gross dental lesions in the rat induced by x-rays and neutrons. Radiat Res 20:577-85.
• 63. Referencesl  Walker R. (1975) Direct effects of radiation on the solubility of human enamel in vitro. J Dent Res 54:901.l  Wiemann MR, Davis MK, Besic FC (1972) Effects of x-radiation on enamel solubility of human teeth in vitro. J Dent Res 51:868l  Shannon I, Trodahl J, Starke E. (1978b) Remineralization of enamel by a saliva substitute designed for use in irradiated patients. Cancer 41:1746-50.l  Jansma J, Borggreven J, Driessens F, et al. (1990) Effect of x-ray irradiation on the permeability of bovine dental enamel. Caries Res 24:164-8.l  Kielbassa A, Beetz I, Schendera A, et al. (1997) Irradiation effects on the microhardness of fluoridated and non-fluoridated dentin. Eur J Oral Sci 105:444-7.l  Kielbassa A, Hinkelbein W, Hellwig, E et al. (2006) Radiation damage to dentition. Lancet Onc 7:326-35.l  Gowgiel JM. (1960) Experimental radio-osteonecrosis of the jaws. J Dent Res 39:176-97.l  Collett, W.R., Thonard, J.C. (1965) The effect of fractional radiation on dentinogenesis in the rat. J Dent Res 44:84-90.
• 64. Referencesl  Koppang H. (1967) Studies on the radiosensitivity of the rat incisor. Odont Tidskr 75:413-50l  Fawzi M, Shklar G, Krakow A. (1985) The effect of radiation on the response of the dental pulp to operative and endodontics procedures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 59:405-13.l  Toljanic J, Saunders V. (1984) Radiation therapy and management of the irradiated patient. J Prosthet Dent 52:852-8.l  Gorlin R, Meskin L. (1963) Severe irradiation during odontogenesis. Oral Surg 16:35-8.l  Pietrokovski J, Menczel J. (1966) Tooth dwarfism and root under development following irradiation. Oral Surg 22:95-9.l  Dahllof G, Rozell B, Forsberg C, et al. (1994) Histologic changes in dental morphology induced by high dose chemotherapy and total body irradiation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod 77:56-60.l  Kaste S, Hopkins K, Jenkins J. (1994) Abnormal odontogenesis in children treated with radiation and chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol 162:1407-11.l  Llory H, Damron A, Frank R. (1971) Changes in the oral flora following buccal pharyngeal radiotherapy. Arch Oral Biol 16:617-30.l  Llory H, Damron A, Gionanni M, et al. (1972) Some population changes in oral anaerobic microorganisms, streptococcus mutans, and yeast following irradiation of salivary glands. Caries Res 6:298-311.
• 65. Referencesl  Brown R, Driezen S, Handler S, et al. (1975) The effect of radiation induced xerostomia on human oral microflora. J Dent Res 54:740-50.l  Keene H, Daly T, Brown L, et al. (1981) Dental caries and streptococcus mutans prevalence in cancer patients with irradiation-induced xerostomia 1-13 years after radiotherapy. Caries Res 15:416-27.l  Keene H and Flemming T. (1987) Prevalence of caries associated microflora after radiotherapy in patients with cancer of the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 64:421-6.l  Epstein J, McBride B, Stevenson-Moore P, et al. (1991) The efficacy of chlorihexidine gel in reduction of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilus species in patients treated with radiation therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 71:172-8.l  Weerkamp A, Wagner K, Vissink A, et al. (1987) Effect of the application of mucin-based saliva substitute on the oral microflora of xerostomic patients. J Oral Pathol 16:474-8.l  Freymiller EG, Sung EC, Friedlander AH. (2000) Detection of radiation- induced cervical atheromas by panoramic radiograph. Oral Oncol 36:175-9.l  Zidar N, Ferluga D, Hvala A, et al. (1997) Contribution to the pathogenesis of radiation-induced injury to large arteries. J Laryngol Otol 111:988-90.
• 66. Referencesl  Eisele DW, Koch DG, Tarazi AE, Jones B. (1991) Aspiration from delayed radiation fibrosis of the neck. Dysphagia. 6:120-22.l  Kang MY, Holland JM, Stevens KR Jr. (2000) Cranial neuropathy following curative chemotherapy and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the nasopharynx. J Laryngol Otol 114:308-10.l  Sharabi Y, Dendi R, Holmes C, Goldstein D. (2003) Baroreflex failure as a late sequela of neck irradiation. Hypertension. 42:110-116.l  Hardman PD, Tweeddale PM, Kerr GR, et al. (1994) The effect of pulmonary function of local and loco-regional irradiation for breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 30:33-42.l  Basavaraju SR, Easterly CE. (2002) Pathophysiological effects of radiation on atherosclerosis development and progression, and the incidence of cardiovascular complications. Med Phys 29:2391-2403.l  Stewart JR, Fajardo LF, Gillette SM, et al. (1995) Radiation injury to the heart. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:1205-11.l  Gyenes G, Rutqvist LE, Liedberg A, Fornander T. (1998) Long term cardiac morbidity and mortality in a randomized trial of pre- and postoperative irradiation therapy versus surgery along in primary breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 48:185-90.
• 67. Referencesl  Khan MH, Ettinger SM. (2001) Post mediastinal radiation coronary artery disease and its effect on arterial conduits. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 52:242-8.l  Hall E. (2000) Radiobiology for the radiobiologist. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkens.
• 68. The End