Oral Cavity Involvement in Mucormycosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mucormycosis is a rare but life-threatening fungal infection. While rhinocerebral forms are well-documented, oral cavity involvement remains underreported and misdiagnosed, despite its potential for rapid progression and serious complications. AIM: This systematic review aimed to evaluate and synthesize available evidence on the clinical presentation, anatomical patterns, diagnostic methods, outcomes, and management strategies associated with oral cavity involvement in mucormycosis. METHODOLOGY: Literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 2025. Eligible human studies were included. Data were extracted and narratively synthesized. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was evaluated with the ROBINS-I tool with 7 included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 451 cases were analyzed. Most patients were middle-aged males with diabetes and a recent post-COVID-19 status. Common clinical features included palatal ulcers, eschar, tooth mobility, and necrotic lesions. Diagnosis relied on potassium hydroxide mount, histopathology, and imaging. Amphotericin B was the mainstay of antifungal therapy, often combined with surgical debridement or maxillectomy. Mortality varied widely across studies, with better outcomes linked to early diagnosis and combined treatment. CONCLUSION: Oral Mucormycosis is a critical yet often underrecognized condition. Timely identification in high-risk patients is essential to prevent progression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".