OBJECTIVE: This purpose of this article is to familiarize pediatricians with the clinical manifestations and management of hand, foot, and mouth disease.
METHODS: A search was conducted in February 2022 in PubMed Clinical Queries using the key term "hand, foot, and mouth disease". The search strategy included all clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews published within the past 10 years. Only papers published in English were included in this review.
RESULTS: Hand, foot, and mouth disease is characterized by a painful oral enanthem and asymptomatic exanthem on the palms and soles. Children younger than 5 years are most commonly affected. Hand, foot, and mouth disease caused by enterovirus A71 is more severe and has a higher rate of complications than that attributed to other viruses such as coxsackievirus A16. Circulatory failure secondary to myocardial impairment and neurogenic pulmonary edema secondary to brainstem damage are the main causes of death. Fortunately, the disease is usually benign and resolves in 7 to10 days without sequelae. Given the self-limited nature of most cases, treatment is mainly symptomatic and supportive. Intravenous immunoglobulin should be considered for the treatment of severe/complicated hand, foot, and mouth disease and has been recommended by several national and international guideline committees. Currently, there are no specific antiviral agents approved for the treatment of the disease. Drugs such as ribavirin, suramin, mulberroside C, aminothiazole analogs, and sertraline have emerged as potential candidates for the treatment of hand, foot, and mouth disease. Vaccination of susceptible individuals in high-risk areas and good personal hygiene are important preventative measures to combat the disease.
CONCLUSION: Familiarity of the disease including its atypical manifestations is crucial so that a correct diagnosis can be made, and appropriate treatment initiated. A timely diagnosis can help avoid contact with the affected individual and decrease the risk of an outbreak.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the 3rd edition of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Electronic searches for articles were carried out in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The quality assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the new version of the QUADOMICS tool. Meta-analysis was conducted whenever possible. The effect size was presented using the Forest plot, whereas the presence of publication bias was examined through Begg's funnel plot.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included in the systematic review. The metabolite profiling was heterogeneous across all the studies. The expression of several salivary metabolites was found to be significantly altered in OPMDs and OCs as compared to healthy controls. Meta-analysis was able to be conducted only for N-acetylglucosamine. There was no significant difference (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI - 0.25-0.56) in the level of N-acetylglucosamine between OPMDs, OC, and the control group.
CONCLUSION: Evidence for N-acetylglucosamine as a salivary biomarker for oral cancer is lacking. Although several salivary metabolites show changes between healthy, OPMDs, and OC, their diagnostic potential cannot be assessed in this review due to a lack of data. Therefore, further high-quality studies with detailed analysis and reporting are required to establish the diagnostic potential of the salivary metabolites in OPMDs and OC.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: While some salivary metabolites exhibit significant changes in oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) and oral cancer (OC) compared to healthy controls, the current evidence, especially for N-acetylglucosamine, is inadequate to confirm their reliability as diagnostic biomarkers. Additional high-quality studies are needed for a more conclusive assessment of salivary metabolites in oral disease diagnosis.
METHODS: Two villages were selected as the sampling frame based on prevalence of tobacco and betel quid chewing habit. Respondents were asked to check their mouth for presence of lesion or abnormalities. Education on oral cancer, including MSE, was provided. Subsequently, respondents were asked to perform MSE. Finally, a clinical oral examination (COE) was done by a specialist and the presence of oral mucosal lesions was recorded.
RESULTS: Almost 64.5 percent of respondents exhibited high levels of difficulty and low mucosal visualization and retracting ability, whereas 3.0 percent demonstrated high attention level when performing MSE. Prevalence of oral mucosal lesions was 59.0 percent, whereas the prevalence of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) was 9.0 percent. Detection of oral lesions by respondents using MSE was lower than detection by the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity of MSE for detection of all types of lesions were 8.6 and 95.0 percent respectively. When analyzing each lesion type separately, MSE was found to be most sensitive in detection of swellings (10.0 percent), and most specific in identifying white lesions (97.8 percent). For detection of OPMDs, although specificity was high (98.9 percent), sensitivity (0 percent), and +LR (0) was poor.
CONCLUSION: MSE is not an effective self-screening tool for early detection of potentially malignant lesions for this population.
AIM: To describe demographic patterns, histopathological findings, and locations of oral and maxillofacial lesions in newborns (birth-1 month) and infants (>1 month-2 years) reported over 51 years.
DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study on histopathological records of newborns and infants was conducted. Patients' demographic characteristics (age, gender, and race), histopathological diagnosis, and lesion's location were gathered. Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was performed to determine associations between demographic characteristics and different categories of lesions.
RESULTS: Out of 66,546 specimens received, 0.44% (290 specimens) were from patients aged 2 years and younger (27 newborns and 263 infants). The most common category was inflammatory/reactive (44.2%), followed by tumour/tumour-like (42.0%), cystic/pseudocystic (6.6%), and miscellaneous lesions (5.5%). Mucous extravasation cysts (23.4%) and Langerhans cell histiocytosis (7.2%) were the most common histopathological diagnoses. Tumour/tumour-like lesions were significant in newborns (P = .021), and majority were congenital epulis (40.7%). Inflammatory/reactive lesions were significantly higher in male (P = .025) and infants (P =
METHODS: A total of 121 PLWHA receiving medical care in Kota Bharu (Kelantan, Malaysia) participated in this cross-sectional study. The Malay version of the short Oral Health Impact Profile (S-OHIP(M)) and the Malay version of the 36-item Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36) were used to assess OHRQOL and HRQOL, respectively. A higher S-OHIP(M) score indicates greater oral impact and worse OHRQOL; a higher SF-36 score indicates better HRQOL. An additional structured self-administered questionnaire was used to obtain other variables of interest from the participants.
RESULTS: Most participants had at least one oral symptom (69.4%), and the most common oral symptom was a cavitated tooth (55.4%). The prevalence of oral impacts was 33.9%, and the mean S-OHIP(M) score was 8.8 (SD = 7.92). The mean S-OHIP(M) score was significantly higher in participants who had toothaches, cavitated teeth, gum abscesses, and bad breath. In addition, participants with lower S-OHIP(M) scores had significantly higher scores in all SF-36 domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for an association among oral symptoms, OHRQOL, and HRQOL in PLWHA from Malaysia. In particular, the presence of oral symptoms was significantly associated with more severe oral impacts and poorer OHRQOL. The presence of less severe oral impacts was associated with a better HRQOL.