I completed radiation therapy in April 2006. The radiation field included my lower jaw (front teeth and right side). I had a lot of problems after treatment including a very slow healing process, and frequent mouth ulcers. Earlier this year I noticed my lower front teeth had shifted. I had x-rays taken and determined that I have osteoradionecrosis (ORN). Also found out this year that I have osteopenia and I'm taking calcium supplements daily.

My front teeth are a little loose (my dentist called them "mobile") and he said there is a good chance I would loose them at some point. My dentist and oral surgeon recommended I undergo HBO therapy and I recently completed 45 treatments. They also recommended I visit my dentist every 2-3 months for an exam and cleaning, take antibiotics before each dental cleaning, continue using the fluoride trays daily, and wear my lower tray nightly to help keep my teeth in position.

My teeth were in good shape before radiation, but they recommended I have my wisdom teeth removed before I start RT (which I did) to avoid potential problems with them in the future. I am now able to eat most foods, but avoid biting into anything with my front teeth.

I'm hoping to keep my front teeth, and was wondering if anyone has any other suggestions?

Thanks!

Sounds like Consumer Reports needs a little updating and could use some OCF information. Susan - if you do cancel your subscription, be sure and tell them why!

Appalling isn't it? The month before one of their contributing MD's wrote an article re OC/epidemic proportions. I messaged Jamie at OCF as this is a great oppty for response.

BULLL POOOOP!I would write them and give them an earful! Go for it or tell me who to contact and I will!

Not that I'm against it, but maybe other considerations are included like the problem with just a visual oral screening in that the oropharynx is not totally visible, accessible, and BOT cancer can be deeper in the structure, and have no visible cancer signs on the surface. HPV almost always involves the oropharynx, which is on the rise, and usually doesn't present with any leukoplakia or eruthroplakia either, so a clear oral exam may mis oropharynx cancer. Most oropharynx cancers are usually found in advanced stages, usually from an enlarged lymph node, as in my case, and two ENT's could not find any cancer by a visual, palpable and flex scope exam, but sent me for further testing. Other countries have mandatory oral cancer screenings like India, Cuba, I believe, which did not lower the cancer rates due to follow up, and other reasons. I guess better screening, new testing, follow-uo, vaccination, and education may help too.

What's misleading in the article is that OC screening is *not* a test, it's a visual exam that dentists should provide at cleaning time. The article lists Oral Cancer under the bold banner "Avoid these screenings" and the cover page "gotcha" reads "3 Cancer Tests You Need Plus 8 You Don't."

Dr. John Santa from Consumer Reports was on the CBS Morning Show today talking up this article. Incidentally, in Feb '12 CR ran an article regarding the "Ballooning Risk" of HPV/Cancer http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/consumer-reports-magazine-february-2012/HPV/index.htm ...as the doctor who wrote it works with Santa, it mystifies me as to why a simple screening for OC made their list.

I'll work on a response as I'm with Jamie at the Yankee Dental Congress in Boston, where I'll be teaching our dental professionals how to do a "proper" OC screening (which isn't just visual btw) and why it benefits their practice to do so.

Thanks Eric! I was hoping we could send them an OCF response. I may still send one of my own. Enjoy your time in Boston. I'm sure you and Jamie will make an impact on the dentists in the Boston area.

Batman to the rescue...:) I am so grateful for all of the active members of this board who are out there advocating for our cause.

I'll tell you the other thing that makes me nuts, if you do see an article on HPV and cancer, all they talk about is girls/cervical. Wake up and smell the java!

What is really frustrating about the Consumer Reports recommendation to skip oral cancer screening tests is it's stated basis; [quote]Who needs it: Most people don't need the test unless they are at high risk, because the cancer is relatively uncommon.[/quote] Why would they say that Oral cancer is just not common enough to worry about.? Because when 99% of cancer deaths are not oral cancer related and 97% of new cancers are not oral cancer, we remain a forgotten minority. The ACS 2013 cancer figure projections are 41,380 cases of oral cancer out of 1,660,290 cancer cases or less than 3%. Yet they recommend oral screening in their 2013 facts and figures
For deaths in 2013, 7,890 out of 580,350 or a little more than 1%. ACS- 2013 Cancer facts and figures
worse, all the news reports and interviews published with the doctors responsible for this bad advice all stress that Consumer Reports relied primarily upon the USPSTF reports. Yet the actual report on oral cancer screening was: T[quote]he U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening adults for oral cancer.[/quote] Plus the USPSTF report is now over nine years old, released in February 2004. This fact is hidden by simply repeating the old 2004 analysis in the "new" 2012 guide. True if you read closely you can see [quote]The 2012 guide covers USPSTF recommendations from 2004 through March 2012, [/quote] It's misleading to say these are 2012 USPSTF recommendations. Worse, when you go to the USPSTF web site to read the report, you see that there is an "update" file on "evidence". Turns out that this update is even older and is based entirely on The search strategy for this brief update included
[quote]a MEDLINE review for English-language articles
published between 1994 and 2001 on new direct
evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and
treatment for oral cancer[/quote]
USPSTF oral cancer

And it gets worse: the "rationale" for the USPSTF sitting on the fence is
Rationale: [quote]The USPSTF found no new good-quality evidence that screening for oral cancer leads to improved health outcomes for either high-risk adults (i.e., those over the age of 50 who use tobacco) or for average-risk adults in the general population. It is unlikely that controlled trials of screening for oral cancer will ever be conducted in the general population because of the very low incidence of oral cancer in the United States. There is also no new evidence for the harms of screening. As a result, the USPSTF could not determine the balance between benefits and harms of screening for oral cancer.[/quote]
so it's a Catch 22:
So it turns out that Consumer Reports is just as unreliable as Dr. Google on oral cancer.
But then we long time subscribers have watch Consumer Reports degenerate into a primarily car buying and car review operation with outdated reviews and model listings not sold in a year for all other areas..so now they deceive by omission by falsely implying that the USPSTF supports their analysis when it fact it does not.
Charm