| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 3 | Page : 309-322 |
|
|
Calcium channel blockers induced gingival overgrowth: A comprehensive review from a dental perspective
Marah Damdoum1, Sudhir R Varma2, Manjusha Nambiar3, Adith Venugopal4
1 Department of Periodontics, University of Buffalo, New York, USA
2 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE; Centre of Medical and Biomedical Allied Health Sciences Research, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE; Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Periodontics, Sr Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
4 Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; University of Puthisastra, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sudhir R Varma
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_57_22
|
|
|
Background: Gingival overgrowth (GO) as a manifestation of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) was first introduced in the literature by Ramon et al. in 1984. Since then, the use of CCBs as a treatment modality for hypertension has been recorded extensively in the literature for its association with GO. Aim: The aim of our study is to evaluate histopathology, treatment, and follow-up for the cases detailed in various studies and also to highlight the protocol mentioned to identify these presentations. Materials and Methods: A broad search was conducted from the period 1980 to 2021 using electronic databases PubMed Central, Scopus, Cochrane, and SciELO databases. About 293 articles were initially chosen. The articles further excluded did not fit the criteria for the study and eventually 50 articles which met the inclusion criteria were chosen as part of this literature review. Results: A comparative analysis was carried out regarding histopathology, treatment modalities, drug dosage, and duration to evaluate the differences in cases between 1980 and 2021. From the available studies, it was found that the histopathological and clinical findings were varied. Treatment strategies employed were different, though follow-ups in most cases were uniform. Conclusion: CCBs and their relationship with GO have been widely reported in the literature. Dentists should approach this condition by taking appropriate medical and dental history and follow evidence-based treatment guidelines to provide more relevant and judicious management of this condition. Inter-disciplinary treatment approaches would provide better outcomes. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
Users Online: 2105
