Abstract Objective: To map and synthesize the available evidence on oral and maxillofacial manifestations (OMMs) associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) therapy (OMMs-GLP-1RA). Material and methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Five databases were assessed, followed by manual and gray literature searches. Studies reporting OMMs-GLP-1RA in adults were considered eligible. included. The critical appraisal was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results: Seven studies published between 2021 and 2026 met the eligibility criteria, including case reports, case series, pharmacovigilance studies, observational studies, and one clinical trial. Semaglutide was the most frequently investigated agent. Xerostomia and salivary dysfunction were the most commonly reported OMMs-GLP-1RA. Reported manifestations also included oral paresthesia, throat discomfort, facial edema, facial paralysis, and Bell’s palsy. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. The case report showed adequate quality, with the only limitation being the diagnostic methods. The case series provided a good description of the characteristics, with the exception of the consecutive inclusion of participants. In the cohort studies, two articles had limitations related to the control of confounding factors and the absence of an outcome measure; the other two met the criteria for methodological quality. The clinical trial reported good randomization and appropriate statistical analysis; however, it did not provide information regarding the blinding of the evaluators. The studies were classified as having a moderate to high risk of bias. Conclusions: Salivary dysfunction, particularly xerostomia and hyposalivation, representing the most frequent OMMs-GLP-1RA. However, the current evidence remains limited and is derived predominantly from case reports, pharmacovigilance studies, and secondary analyses. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed to clarify the prevalence, underlying mechanisms, and clinical significance of these adverse effects.
Azevedo et al. (Thu,) studied this question.