Influence of bisphosphonates on alveolar bone loss around osseointegrated implants

Effect of anti-resorptive therapy on implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This review was conducted to systematically assess the impact of bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab, used as anti-resorptive therapies, on the incidence of dental implant failure.

METHODS

Electronic and manual searches were performed in accordance with the described search protocol. Only articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The primary outcome was implant failure, while secondary outcomes included biological complications and comorbidities. Following data extraction, a quality assessment and meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen eligible studies were included in the analysis following a qualitative evaluation. BP administration, regardless of the timing of anti-resorptive therapy, did not significantly increase the risk of implant failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.34). Subgroup analysis revealed a slightly higher, although statistically insignificant, risk of failure in patients with a follow-up period of 3 years or more compared to those with a follow-up duration of less than 3 years (with ORs of 2.82 and 1.53, respectively). Due to a lack of eligible studies, a meta-analysis for denosumab could not be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that BP treatment does not compromise the survival of dental implants. Specifically, in patients with osteoporosis, implant failure rates were not significantly influenced by the administration of BPs before the placement of dental implants, suggesting that low-dose BP therapy may not contraindicate implant placement. Nevertheless, regular check-ups and maintenance periodontal treatment must not be neglected, and concomitant biological factors should be considered to ensure the long-term success of implant rehabilitation.

Dental implant considerations in patients with systemic diseases: An updated comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Various medical conditions and the drugs used to treat them have been shown to impede or complicate dental implant surgery. It is crucial to carefully monitor the medical status and potential post-operative complications of patients with systemic diseases, particularly elderly patients, to minimize the risk of health complications that may arise.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to review the existing evidence on the viability of dental implants in patients with systemic diseases and to provide practical recommendations to achieve the best possible results in the corresponding patient population.

METHODS

The information for our study was compiled using data from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases and searched separately for each systemic disease included in our work until October 2023. An additional manual search was also performed to increase the search sensitivity. Only English-language publications were included and assessed according to titles, abstracts and full texts.

RESULTS

In total, 6784 studies were found. After checking for duplicates and full-text availability, screening for the inclusion criteria and manually searching reference lists, 570 articles remained to be considered in this study.

CONCLUSION

In treating patients with systemic conditions, the cost-benefit analysis should consider the patient's quality of life and expected lifespan. The success of dental implants depends heavily on ensuring appropriate maintenance therapy, ideal oral hygiene standards, no smoking and avoiding other risk factors. Indications and contraindications for dental implants in cases of systemic diseases are yet to be more understood; broader and hardcore research needs to be done for a guideline foundation.

Clinical Impact on Dental Implant Survival in Patients Taking Antiresorptive Medications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may need dental implants to replace missing teeth. The data on implant failure in patients on antiresorptive medication requiring dental implants, is conflicting and limited. This systematic review aims to investigate if antiresorptive medications have any clinical impact on dental implant survival. Electronic databases were searched until May 2020. The focus question (PICOS): Participants: humans, Interventions: implant placement surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication, Comparisons: patients on antiresorptive medication vs control (patients not on antiresorptive medication), Outcomes: implant survival, and Study design: clinical studies. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209083). Fourteen nonrandomized studies were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-1 tool. Only studies with a control were included for the meta-analysis, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis using implant-level data, and 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis using patient-level data. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups at the patient level based on 265 patients. However, there was a statistically significant difference at the implant level based on 2697 implants. Therefore, antiresorptive medications, mainly bisphosphonates (BPs), may significantly contribute to implant failure. Antiresorptive medications, especially BPs may reduce implant survival and impair the osseointegration of dental implants. Failed implants in patients on BPs may not lead to osteonecrosis and may be replaced with success.

Medication-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Induced by Regenerative Therapy in Implant Dentistry: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

There is limited scientific evidence regarding the medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) induced by regenerative therapy (RT) associated with dental implant treatment. Thus, the current scoping review systematically maps the MRONJ research induced by RTs in implant dentistry and recognizes the existing gaps in knowledge.

DATA

Original studies and reviews investigating the impact of RT on the development of MRONJ were included.

SOURCES

Two reviewers independently searched the MEDLINE-PubMed and Scopus databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review and included articles published in English up to March 31, 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Eighteen articles that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this study. Ten mapping parameters for investigating the association of RTs with MRONJ development were examined and evaluated within the selected articles.

RESULTS

There was severely limited information regarding the procedures of RTs including; the grafting materials, surgical protocols, and success and failure rates. The RT associated with MRONJ cases was sinus floor augmentation in patients taking bisphosphonate and denosumab. Moreover, there were limited data on the implant treatment associated with RTs such as time of insertion, implant length and diameter, and loading protocol.

CONCLUSION

The current scoping review revealed that some specific RTs associated with other factors hold a potential risk of MRONJ occurrence. However, the scientific evidence is limited with many gaps. Further investigations are needed to establish an evidence-based clinical guideline for treating high-risk patients.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians should cautiously assess the risk of MRONJ development during implant treatment planning for patients undertaking antiresorptive medications. The adverse outcome of RT procedures should not be underestimated and a complete explanation of the possible risks should be given to the patients.

Bisphosphonates and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of bisphosphonates (BPs) on the dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL). An electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, besides a meta-regression in order to verify how the log odds ratio (OR) was associated with follow-up time. The five- and ten-year estimated implant survivals were calculated. The review included 33 publications. Altogether, there were 1727 and 21,986 implants placed in patients taking and not taking BPs, respectively. A pairwise meta-analysis (26 studies) showed that implants in BP patients had a higher failure risk in comparison to non-BP patients (OR 1.653, p = 0.047). There was an estimated decrease of 0.004 in log OR for every additional month of follow-up, although it was not significant (p = 0.259). The global estimated implant survival in patients taking BPs after 5 and 10 years was 94.2% (95% CI, 94.0-94.4) and 90.1% (95% CI, 89.8-90.3), respectively. It was not possible to make any reliable analysis concerning MBL, as only two studies reported MBL results separated by groups. There is a 65.3% higher risk of implant failure in patients taking BPs in comparison to patients not taking this class of drugs.

Do Systemic Diseases and Medications Influence Dental Implant Osseointegration and Dental Implant Health? An Umbrella Review

The aim of this umbrella review is to evaluate what are the most common medications and systemic diseases that can affect bone-implant integration, the success rate and survival rate of dental implants, peri-implant tissue health, and implant loss. Systematic reviews, with meta-analysis or not, about how systemic diseases and medications influence dental implant osseointegration, survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant diseases, published only in the English language, are electronically searched across the most important scientific databases. The present umbrella review includes eight systematic reviews, and osteoporosis and diabetes are the most investigated pathologies. Systemic diseases, such as neurologic disorders, HIV, hypothyroidism, cardiovascular diseases, and drugs, such as beta blockers, anti-hypertensives, or diuretics do not show a decreased rate of implant osseointegration. It seems that drugs, such as proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) or serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), negatively affect implant osseointegration. Few studies compare the effects of drugs and systemic diseases on the parameters considered in this overview. It is important to underline how the results of this review need to be validated with subsequent and more reviews.

Avoiding implant-related complications in medically compromised patients with or without unhealthy lifestyle/Elevated oxidative stress

Increased human life expectancy broadens the alternatives for missing teeth and played a role in the widespread use of dental implants and related augmentation procedures for the aging population. Though, many of these patients may have one or more diseases. These systemic conditions may directly lead to surgical complications, compromise implant/bone healing, or influence long-term peri-implant health and its response to biologic nuisances. Offering patients credible expectations regarding intra- and postoperative complications and therapeutic prognosis is an ethical and legal obligation. Clear identification of potential types of adverse effects, complications, or errors is important for decision-making processes as they may be related to different local, systemic, and technical aspects. Therefore, the present review structures the underlying biological mechanisms, clinical evidence, and clinical recommendations for the most common systemic risk factors for implant-related complications.

Evaluation of oral implant survival rate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia/osteoporosis. A retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Implant placement is a common part of dental rehabilitation in older individuals. The role of diminished bone mineral density on the healing of dental implants remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the implant survival rate in postmenopausal women with osteopenia/osteoporosis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of postmenopausal women treated with dental implants and stratified into two groups: those receiving antiresorptive therapy (W ≥ 50 years S) or those not receiving treatment (W ≥ 50 years U). The predictor variable was osteopenia/osteoporosis treatment. The outcome variable was implant failure rate at stage two uncovering. Other study variables included: age, implant location, and bone graft placement. T-test, chi-square test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression were computed. A p-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 93 W ≥ 50 years U (197 implants) and 114 W ≥ 50 years S (189 implants). W ≥ 50 years U showed a statistically higher implant failure rate with chi-square testing compared to W ≥ 50 years S (p=0.022). However, univariate, and multivariate logistic regression between age, location, bone grafting, and implant failure did not demonstrate significant associations.

CONCLUSION

Both groups integrated dental implants successfully, with a low failure rate. Implant location, bone grafting, and osteopenia/osteoporosis treatment did not significantly affect osseointegration at uncovering.

A Potential Interaction Between Bisphosphonates and Osseointegration of Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Implants Leading to Late Device Extrusion

Bisphosphonate therapy is commonly used to treat patients suffering from osteoporosis due to its clinical effectiveness and its generally benign safety profile; however, osteonecrosis of the jaw is a rare side effect that can occur in some patients. A far less elucidated area of concern is the effect of these medications on osseointegrated implants, which require adequate bone formation to ensure long-term viability of the implant. To date, there are no reports in the otolaryngology literature examining the interplay between osteoporosis, bisphosphonate therapy, and osseointegrated bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA).

In this case report, we describe an osteoporotic patient on bisphosphonates experiencing late bilateral failure of her osseointegrated BAHA implants shortly after starting therapy. Certainly, direct causality cannot be determined from this single report, but the temporal relationship described in this case suggests a potential interaction between bisphosphonate use and delayed failure of the osseointegrated hearing devices. Consequently, otolaryngologists who implant osseointegrated hearing devices should consider offering preoperative counseling to patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy.

Frequency of osteonecrosis in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of osteonecrosis of the jaw in bisphosphonate users submitted to dental procedures.

METHODS

This systematic review searched the sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library, with no restriction on language or publication date. Reviewers, in pairs and independently, selected the studies, extracted their data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies (5391 participants) were included. The most reported bisphosphonates were zoledronate (n = 17 studies) and alendronate (n = 19) for treating cancers (n = 11) and osteoporosis (n = 16), respectively. Twelve studies were of low methodological quality. The frequency of osteonecrosis was 2.7% (95% CI: 0.9-5.2%) and proved higher for intravenous [6.9% (0.7-17.3%)] than oral [0.2% (0.9-5.2%)] bisphosphonate use. No association between longer treatment duration and greater frequency of osteonecrosis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher frequency of osteonecrosis was observed in intravenous bisphosphonate users submitted to dental extraction. Further studies collecting more detailed information on the bisphosphonates used and of greater methodological rigor are warranted to confirm these findings and better inform prescribers, dental surgeons, and other professionals on risks of bisphosphonate use in this patient group.

Methods of Topical Administration of Drugs and Biological Active Substances for Dental Implants-A Narrative Review

Dental implants are, nowadays, established surgical devices for the restoration of lost teeth. Considered as an alternative for traditional prosthetic appliances, dental implants surpass them in reliability and patient feedback. Local drug delivery around the implants promotes osseointegration and reduces peri-implantitis. However, there are currently no methods of a multiple, precise topical administration of drugs to the implant area. Engineering coatings on the implants, drug application on carriers during implantation, or gingival pockets do not meet all requirements of dental surgeons. Therefore, there is a need to create porous implants and other medical devices that will allow a multiple drug delivery at a controlled dose and release profile without traumatic treatment. Due to the growing demand for the use of biologically active agents to support dental implant treatment at its various stages (implant placement, long-term use of dental superstructures, treatment of the peri-implant conditions) and due to the proven effectiveness of the topical application of pharmacological biologically active agents to the implant area, the authors would like to present a review and show the methods and devices that can be used by clinicians for local drug administration to facilitate dental implant treatment. Our review concludes that there is a need for research in the field of inventions such as new medical devices or implants with gradient solid-porous structures. These devices, in the future, will enable to perform repeatable, controllable, atraumatic, and repeatable injections of active factors that may affect the improvement of osteointegration and the longer survival of implants, as well as the treatment of peri-implantitis.

Dental Implant Placement in Patients With a History of Medications Related to Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Systematic Review

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and 1 study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of "implant surgery-triggered" medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained before implant placement.

Inhibitory Effects of Alendronate on Adhesion and Viability of Preosteoblast Cells on Titanium Discs

Objective  This study aimed to investigate the effects of alendronate (ALN; a bisphosphonate) on adhesion and viability of preosteoblasts using different cell passages on sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) Ti surfaces.

Materials and Methods  Preosteoblast, MC3T3, cells (passage 42; P42 and passage 62; P62) were cultured with ALN (1 and 5 µM) on cell culture plate for 7 days. Cells were lifted, counted, and seeded on SLA Ti surfaces. Cells were incubated on the discs for 6 hours to examine cell adhesion by using confocal microscopy and for 24 hours to determine cell viability by using MTT assay.

Results  ALN interfered with cell adhesion on Ti surfaces by reducing the cell number in both cell passages. Nuclei of untreated cells showed oval shape, whereas some nuclei of ALN-treated cells demonstrated crescent and condensed appearance. ALN at 1 and 5 µM significantly decreased nuclear area and perimeter in P42, while ALN at 5 µM reduced nuclear area and perimeter in P62. After 24 hours, cells (P42) grown on Ti surfaces showed decreased cell viability when culturing with 5 µM ALN.

Conclusion  ALN reduced cell adhesion and viability of preosteoblasts on Ti surfaces. ALN treatment seemed to exert higher inhibitory effects on nuclear shape and size as well as cell viability in lower cell passage. This led to the reduction in cell to implant surface interaction after encountering bisphosphonate treatment.

Growth Hormone As Antiaging Factor in Old Bones

Aging induces changes in bone. Growth hormone (GH) is reduced by aging, and age-related changes observed in old bones might be due to a decrease in the GH/insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) axis. GH administration on aged individuals is controversial. This study aimed to assess the effect of systemic GH treatment on bone properties, bone metabolism, and bone mineral density (BMD) in long bone of old rats. Aged Wistar rats were treated with GH at a dose of 2 mg/kg/day during 10 weeks. Plasma osteocalcin, IGF-I, and carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen levels were measured. Cross-sectional bone areas and BMD were measured by morphometric and densitometric analysis, respectively. Femora were analyzed by three point-bending testing. t-Test was used for statistical evaluation. p < 0.05 was considered to be significant. Significantly enhanced bone area, at the expense of the cortical area, was found in treated rats. The densitometric analysis showed 11% higher BMD in the experimental group. Significantly higher bone flexural modulus, stiffness, and ultimate load were observed in the treated rats. Plasma osteocalcin and IGF-I levels were significantly increased in the treated group, while the resorption marker concentration remained unchanged. Within the limitations of this experimental study, systemic GH administration has shown to enhance biomechanical properties, BMD, cortical mass, and plasma IGF-I and osteocalcin in old treated rats, compared to the control group; consequently, GH could be considered as an alternative therapy against age-related changes in the bone.

Success Rate and Safety of Dental Implantology in Patients Treated With Antiresorptive Medication: A Systematic Review

There is no agreement of data on the subject of implant failure and the development of osteonecrosis in patients receiving antiresorptive agents. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether dental implants placed in patients on antiresorptive medication have an increased failure rate and whether the implant placement or the implant existence are risk factors for developing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). An electronic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, and all publications fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. The search was completed by a hand research of the references cited in all electronic identified publications, resulting in 411 articles. Based on the inclusion criteria, 32 studies were included, with a total of 5221 patients, 12 751 implants, 618 cases of implants loss, and 136 cases of MRONJ analyzed. Because of the small number of studies, most of which were characterized by a low level of quality, it cannot be established that the use of antiresorptive medication affects dental implant survival rates. The risk of MRONJ as an early or late complication is also not well established. Therefore, successful dental implant procedures in patients receiving antiresorptive medication might be possible, but more studies need to be carried out in the future to verify this topic. Apart from intravenous antiresorptive drugs, which remain an absolute contraindication, the use of antiresorptive medication is not a contraindication to dental implantology, but it must be accompanied by careful treatment planning, informing patients about possible complications, and essential long follow-up periods.

Osseointegration Pharmacology: A Systematic Mapping Using Artificial Intelligence

Clinical performance of osseointegrated implants could be compromised by the medications taken by patients. The effect of a specific medication on osseointegration can be easily investigated using traditional systematic reviews. However, assessment of all known medications requires the use of evidence mapping methods. These methods allow assessment of complex questions, but they are very resource intensive when done manually. The objective of this study was to develop a machine learning algorithm to automatically map the literature assessing the effect of medications on osseointegration. Datasets of articles classified manually were used to train a machine-learning algorithm based on Support Vector Machines. The algorithm was then validated and used to screen 599,604 articles identified with an extremely sensitive search strategy. The algorithm included 281 relevant articles that described the effect of 31 different drugs on osseointegration. This approach achieved an accuracy of 95%, and compared to manual screening, it reduced the workload by 93%. The systematic mapping revealed that the treatment outcomes of osseointegrated medical devices could be influenced by drugs affecting homeostasis, inflammation, cell proliferation and bone remodeling. The effect of all known medications on the performance of osseointegrated medical devices can be assessed using evidence mappings executed with highly accurate machine learning algorithms.

Effects of anti-resorptive drugs on implant survival and peri-implantitis in patients with existing osseointegrated dental implants: a retrospective cohort study

The effect of anti-resorptive drug (ARD) usage among patients with successful dental implant osseointegration is controversial. This study showed an increased risk of implant failure in ARD users. Risk factors included pre-existing marginal bone loss, overdenture, diabetes, and a short interval between implant placement and ARD administration.

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aimed to determine whether anti-resorptive drug (ARD) usage increased risk of implant failure among patients with successful implant osseointegration. Additionally, the study investigated risk factors that affected implant survival rate in ARD users.

METHODS

Eighty ARD users with 344 implants who had more than 12 months of follow-up from the initiation of ARD treatment during the period between 2008 and 2017 were included, along with 80 non-ARD users from the same period. The primary outcome was dental implant survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 85.3 months. Implant survival rates were 89.83% in ARD users and 96.03% in non-ARD users. In the univariate Cox proportional hazard model, risk of implant failure was significantly higher in patients with pre-existing marginal bone loss (MBL), diabetes, and concurrent bone augmentation. However, risk of implant failure was significantly lower when the interval between implant placement and ARD administration was < 36 months. Compared with overdenture, single crown and fixed splinted users had lower risk of implant failure. In multivariate analysis, variables including pre-existing MBL, diabetes, < 36-month interval between implant placement and ARD treatment, and usage of fixed splinted prosthesis were significantly associated with increased risk of implant failure.

CONCLUSIONS

ARD administration after implant osseointegration was correlated with a reduced implant survival rate. Pre-existing MBL, diabetes, type of final prosthesis, and the interval between implant placement and initiation of ARD administration influenced risk of implant failure.

Are There Contraindications for Placing Dental Implants?

There are few absolute contraindications to dental implant placement. Relative contraindications include cognitive decline, American Society of Anesthesiology patient status IV or higher categories, or medical conditions that may jeopardize the life or lifespan of the patient. Precautions for placing dental implants should be viewed with respect to the evidence-based exposures that can contribute to risk of failure, including but not limited to local, behavioral, and medical factors. Risk for dental implant failure increases in association with (1) past history of periodontal disease, (2) bruxism, (3) smoking, and (4) radiation therapy.

Medication-related dental implant failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent impact on implant failures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Implant failure (IF) was the primary outcome, while biological/mechanical and the causes/timing associated with IF were set as secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses for the binary outcome IF and odds ratio were performed to investigate the association with medications.

RESULTS

A final selection of 17 articles was screened for qualitative assessment. As such, five studies focused on evaluating the association of implant failure and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), two on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), seven on bisphosphonates (BPs), and one on anti-hypertensives (AHTNs). For PPIs, the fixed effect model estimated a difference of IF rates of 4.3%, indicating significantly higher IF rates in the test compared to the control group (p < 0.5). Likewise, for SSRIs, the IF was shown to be significantly higher in the individuals taking SSRIs (p < 0.5) as estimated a difference of 7.5%. No subset meta-analysis could be conducted for AHTNs medications as only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which revealed an increased survival rate of AHTN medication. None of the other medications yielded significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review showed an association of PPIs and SSRIs with an increased implant failure rate. Hence, clinicians considering implant therapy should be aware of possible medication-related implant failures.

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro- or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and peri-implantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified. Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included. Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls. Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose oral BP intake for osteoporosis treatment, in general, does not compromise implant therapy, that is, patients on ARDs do not lose more implants nor get more implant-related complications/failures comparing to implant patients without BP intake. There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of high-dose BPs or other widely used ARDs (e.g., denosumab), or on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures. Patients with high-dose ARD intake for management of malignancies, patients on oral BP over a longer period of time, and patients with comorbidities should be considered as high-risk patients for MRONJ.

Dental Implant Placement in Patients on Bisphosphonate Therapy: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The review aims to study dental implant placement purposefulness for patients who have been treated or are on treatment with bisphosphonate medication.

Material and Methods

Structured search strategy was applied on electronic databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central and ResearchGate. Scientific publications in English between 2006 and 2017 were identified in accordance with inclusion, exclusion criteria. Publication screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Outcome measures included implant failure or implant-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Results

In total, 32 literature sources were reviewed, and 9 of the most relevant articles that are suitable to the criteria were selected. Heterogeneity between the studies was found and no meta-analysis could be done. Five studies analysed intraoral bisphosphonate medication in relation with implant placement, three studies investigated intravenous bisphosphonate medication in relation with implant placement and one study evaluated both types of medication given in relation with implant placement. Patients with intraoral therapy appeared to have a better implant survival (5 implants failed out of 423) rate at 98.8% vs. patients treated intravenously (6 implants failed out of 68) at 91%; the control group compared with intraoral bisphosphonate group appeared with 97% success implant survival rate (27 implants failed out of 842), showing no significant difference in terms of success in implant placement.

Conclusions

Patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates seemed to have a higher chance of developing implant-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. The intraorally treated patient group appeared to have more successful results. Implant placement in patients treated intraorally could be considered safe with precautions.

Immediate implant placement following 1-year treatment with oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates: a histomorphometric canine study on peri-implant bone

OBJECTIVES

Bisphosphonates (BPs) are anti-resorptive medications with inhibitory effects on osteoclasts which decrease bone turnover. The present study aimed to assess the early effects of BPs on peri-implant bone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve female mongrel dogs were assigned to one control and two experimental groups as follows: 12 months of oral alendronate (ALN, 3.5 mg/kg/week) or intravenous (IV) pamidronate (PAM, 1 mg/kg/week) for experimental groups. Following 8 weeks after implant insertion, the specimens were sacrificed, histological evaluation was performed, and C-terminal telopeptide of collagen I (CTx) analysis was performed on serums.

RESULTS

PAM demonstrated the greatest marginal bone level (MBL), 2.64 ± 0.48, followed by ALN and control, 2.5 ± 0.4 and 0.66 ± 0.5 respectively. The least bone-implant contact was observed in PAM group (%39 ± 0.03) while it was significantly greater in the control group (p < 0.05). PAM and ALN demonstrated < 10 CTx levels versus > 300 in controls.

CONCLUSION

It is assumed that long-term oral or IV BP therapy decreases marginal bone resorption and osseointegration. These changes were more accentuated in IV BP administration. CTx does not seem to be a precise predictor for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

BPs impair peri-implant bone remodeling and this phenomena may be effective for reducing resorption at esthetic zone implants; however, decrease in osseointegration may be a concern for implant treatment in patients receiving BPs.

Effect of high-frequency loading and parathyroid hormone administration on peri-implant bone healing and osseointegration

The objective of this study is to examine the effect of low-magnitude, high-frequency (LMHF) loading, and anti-osteoporosis medications such as parathyroid hormone (PTH) and bisphosphonates on peri-implant bone healing in an osteoporosis model, and to assess their combined effects on these processes. Thirteen-week-old ovariectomized rats (n = 44) were divided into three groups: PTH, alendronate, and saline. After 3 weeks of drug administration, titanium implants were inserted into the tibiae. Each group was subdivided into two groups: with or without LMHF loading via whole-body vibration (50 Hz at 0.5 g, 15 min per day, 5 days per week). Rats were killed 4 weeks following implantation. Removal torque test, micro-CT analyses (relative gray (RG) value, water = 0, and implant = 100), and histomorphometric analyses (bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and peri-implant bone formation (bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV))) were performed. Removal torque values and BIC were significantly differed by loading and drug administration (ANOVA). Post hoc analysis showed that PTH-treated groups were significantly higher than the other drug-treated groups. BV/TV was significantly enhanced by PTH administration. In cortical bone, RG values were significantly increased by loading. In trabecular bone, however, RG values were significantly increased by PTH administration. These findings suggest that LMHF loading and PTH can act locally and additively on the bone healing process, improving the condition of implant osseointegration.

Whole-body vibration and administration of a hormone used to treat osteoporosis can enhance bone healing at the site of a titanium implant. Toru Ogawa of Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry in Sendai, Japan, and colleagues gave anti-osteoporosis medications, either parathyroid hormone or the bisphosphonate drug alendronate, to female rat models of osteoporosis. After three weeks of drug administration or a saline control, the researchers inserted titanium implants into the rats’ leg bones. Half the rats were then exposed to whole-body vibration, which applies low-magnitude, high-frequency mechanical forces. A multitude of tests showed that parathyroid hormone improved bone healing at the implant more than alendronate or saline did. The vibrational stimulus further increased the healing. The findings suggest that these treatments could aid in oral bone healing for patients receiving dental implants.

Influence of Bisphosphonates on Implant Failure Rates and Characteristics of Postmenopausal Woman Mandibular Jawbone

Rehabilitation of oral function using dental implants is clinically effective and highly predictable. Both bone quantity and quality at the implant site affect the success of the procedure. However, the effect of bisphosphonate (BP) use on mandibular bone quality has not been well documented. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the bone mineral density (BMD) and cortical thickness of the mandible, as well as the influence of BP use on early implant failure. Twenty-five female patients (≥60 years of age) were selected from among 93 candidates with partially edentulous posterior mandibles. Eleven patients had received BP therapy using alendronate (BP group), and 14 patients had received alternate therapy (non-BP group). Cortical and trabecular BMD was measured using quantitative computed tomography. Cortical thickness was measured using computed tomography. The BMDs and cortical thicknesses of the two groups were compared. The results were as follows: (1) Cortical BMD was significantly higher in the BP group, (2) trabecular BMD was not affected by BP use, and (3) Cortical thickness was affected by the duration of BP use. These results indicate that BP use affects the quality and quantity of the cortical bone in the partially edentulous posterior mandible of patients with osteoporosis, which should be considered prior to treatment with dental implants in patients taking BPs.

Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw and Dental Implants Failures: A Systematic Review

No well-established evidence supporting safe use of bisphosphonates (BPs) or other antiresorptive agents prior, during, or after dentoalveolar surgery, are currently available; moreover, the real risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) development is still unknown. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the scientific literature concerning the implants placement in antiresorptive agent users and the related risk of implants failure and ONJ development. English papers published from January 2003 until December 2014 were identified on the MEDLINE database. Titles and abstracts retrieved form electronic search were screened separately by 2 examiners; thus, original studies dealing with dental implants placement during or before bone antiresorptive agent therapy and the relative risk of implant failure or development of osteonecrosis were evaluated. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the high risk of bias, there is no evidence of the safe use of oral antiresorptive agents prior or after dental implant surgery. Indeed, implant failure and ONJ development can occur and represent a devastating side effect that should be considered during treatment. Within the limitation of the present systematic review, high quality studies are needed to provide an adequate level of evidence regarding the safety of dentoalveolar surgery during or before bone resorption inhibition therapy and the increase predisposition to osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) development. Therefore, antiresorptive agent therapy should be considered a risk factor until further evidence is prospectively obtained.

General Diseases Influence on Peri-Implantitis Development: a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the influence of systemic diseases or medications used in their treatment on the dental implant therapy success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search strategy was implemented on the National Library of Medicine database (MEDLINE) (Ovid) and EMBASE electronic databases between January 2006 and January 2016. Human studies with available English articles analysing the relationship between dental implant therapy success and systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, AIDS/HIV, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, Crohn's disease, cardiovascular diseases, scleroderma, Sjögren's syndrome, lichen planus, ectodermal dysplasia, post-transplantation status, were included in present review according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO system with the code CRD42016033662.

RESULTS

Present review included forty one retrospective and prospective follow-up studies, case-control studies, case report series and cohort studies. Despite some limitations this study reveals positive results of implantation in most systemic conditions that should be interpreted with caution. Influence of cardiovascular diseases on the dental implantation success should be explored deeply, because of controversial results and likelihood of comorbidity expressed by a history of cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis. There is only a weak relationship with bone density in osteoporosis and implant failure. All the other diseases did not show significant effect on implantation success.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent studies with low strength of evidence and controversy show that systemic diseases may have potential effect on the success of implantation, but further detailed studies are needed to provide these findings.

Bisphosphonate treatment and dental implants: A systematic review

Background

To analyze articles that studied patients submitted to diphosphonates therapy and who received dental implants before, during or after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment, compared to healthy patients, analyzing the increase of failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) incidence.

Material and Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was used in this study. The clinical question in “PICO” format was: In patients under bisphosphonate therapy, do dental implants placement, compared to healthy patients, increase the failure and loss of implants or bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw incidence? PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for articles published up until April 15, 2015 using a combination of MeSH terms and their Entry terms.

Results

The search resulted in 375 articles. After selection according to the eligibility criteria, 15 studies fulfilled were included (eight retrospective, one prospective and six case series), with a total of 1339 patients analyzed, 3748 implants placed, 152 loss of implants and 78 cases of BRONJ.

Conclusions

Due to the lack of randomized clinical trials looking at this theme, further studies with longer follow-up are needed to elucidate the remaining questions. Thus, it is wise to be careful when planning dental implant surgery in patients undergoing bisphosphonate therapy because of the risk of developing BRONJ as well as occurring failure of implant. Moreover, complete systemic condition of the patient must be also taking into considering when such procedures are performed.

Key words:Bisphosphonates, diphosphonates, dental implants, osteonecrosis.

Risk Factors for Implant Failure and Peri-Implant Pathology in Systemic Compromised Patients

PURPOSE

To identify the possible risk factors for implant failure and peri-implant pathology in a population of systemically compromised patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective clinical study included a total of 721 systemically compromised patients (422 women, 299 men), with an average age of 51 years (range: 20 to 87) rehabilitated with dental implants. The average follow-up time was 7.3 years. The patients' demographic variables (age and gender) and clinical variables (implant location, type of implant surface, and systemic conditions) were recorded. Outcome measures were implant failure and peri-implant pathology. Binary logistic regression models were performed to investigate the effect of the patients' demographic and clinical characteristics on the dependent variables implant failure and peri-implant pathology. A linear regression model was performed to correlate the patient's characteristics with the number of failed implants. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and corresponding levels of significance were estimated for each variable.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression disclosed increased age (patients over 40 years of age) as a risk factor for implant failure (OR = 2.63) and hepatitis as a risk factor for peri-implant pathology (OR = 3.74). Multivariate linear regression disclosed rheumatologic and cardiac diseases to be correlated with a higher number of failed implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the results suggest no absolute contraindications for implant rehabilitation in a population of systemically compromised patients. Nevertheless, this study suggests that increasing age, rheumatological condition, cardiovascular condition, and hepatitis should be considered when performing implant-supported rehabilitations due to their negative influence on the outcome.

Intricate Assessment and Evaluation of Dental Implants in Patients on Bisphosphonate Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteonecrosis is one of the prevalent side effects of bisphosphonate (BP) therapy in oral cancer patients. In case of patients with various oncologic lesions, standard guidelines contraindicate the use of dental implants if the patients are on BP therapy. Literature also quotes studies that emphasize on the safety of dental implants in patients on BP therapy. Hence, this study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of dental implants in patients on BP therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, a total of 140 dental implants in 112 patients were included. Inclusion criteria included only those patients who were on or had history of BP therapy. Calculation of implant failure and survival rate was done.

RESULTS

Ten cases of implant failure occurred, giving a success rate of above 92%, which was comparable to the results found in previous studies in patients who were not on BP therapy.

CONCLUSION

No significant risk of implant failure is seen in patients on BP therapy compared with other patients.

Dental implants in patients treated with antiresorptive medication - a systematic literature review

Objective

Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws (BP-ONJ) is triggered by inflammatory processes. Typical trigger factors are periodontal disease, denture pressure sores, and surgical interventions such as tooth extractions. Unfortunately there is only little data on how to proceed with implant therapy in patients with bisphosphonate treatment. This topic is not addressed in the German guidelines on medication-associated osteonecrosis. Therefore a systematic literature review was performed.

Methods

The PICO design was used: (Patients) For which subclientel of patients with antiresorptive therapy (intervention) do dental implants have a benefit (control) compared to forgoing dental implants (outcome) in regards to oral rehabilitation and quality of life without having a substantial risk of BP-ONJ development? A PubMed search was performed including all studies dealing with this topic. Case reports and studies with less than 5 cases were excluded.

Results

There is only very little data available, mostly retrospective case series. 50 articles were analyzed in detail. BP-ONJ can be triggered by dental implants and by dentures in patients with benign and malignant primary diseases. In most studies, analyzing osteoporosis patients only, no cases of BP-ONJ were observed in patients with implant therapy in the time span observed. There are no studies about implant therapy in patients with malignant diseases. Many case series analyzing the trigger factors for BP-ONJ describe dentures as one of the main causes. Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis has a benefit in the prevention of BP-ONJ development.

Conclusion

Successful implant therapy is possible in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy. The possibility of osteonecrosis development needs to be explained to the patient. An individual risk assessment is essential, taking the primary disease with the medication and further wound-healing-compromising diseases and medications into account. If possible, bone augmentations should be avoided, and a perioperative antimicrobiological prophylaxis is strongly recommended in these patients.

Dental Implant Supported Restorations Improve Quality of Life in Osteoporotic Women

Introduction. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of life (QoL) in partially edentulous osteoporotic women who have missing teeth restored with dental implant retained restorations with those who do not and, secondarily, to report the rate of osteonecrosis in this sample. Methods. 237 participants completed the Utian QoL survey, a 23-question document measuring across psychosocial domains of well-being including occupational, health, emotional, and sexual domains which together contribute to an overall score. The subset of participants having dental implant supported prosthesis (64) was compared to the subset having nonimplant supported fixed restorations (47), the subset having nonimplant supported removable restorations (60), and the subset having no restoration of missing teeth (66). Results. ANOVA showed significant difference in all QoL domains between the four subsets (p < 0.05). Although 134 reported oral bisphosphonate and 51 reported IV bisphosphonate use, no signs of ONJ were identified in any participants. Conclusion. These findings show implant retained oral rehabilitation has a statistically significant impact over nonimplant and traditional fixed restorations, removable restorations, and no restoration of missing teeth in far reaching areas including occupational, health, emotional, sexual, and overall QoL. These findings also support future examination of psychosocial outcomes associated with oral rehabilitation and the incorporation of oral health into women's health promotion.

Key systemic and environmental risk factors for implant failure

Dental implants are an important treatment option for patients interested in replacing lost or missing teeth. Although a robust body of literature has reviewed risk factors for tooth loss, the evidence for risk factors associated with dental implants is less well defined. This article focuses on key systemic risk factors relating to dental implant failure, as well as on perimucositis and peri-implantitis.

What is the impact of bisphosphonate therapy upon dental implant survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis are carried out to assess the scientific evidence that bisphosphonate therapy can decrease the success rate of dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The PubMed (Medline) database was used to search for articles published up until February 22, 2014. The meta-analysis was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality.

RESULTS

The combinations of search terms resulted in a list of 256 titles. Fourteen finally met the inclusion criteria and were thus selected for inclusion in the systematic review. Eight studies (six retrospective and two prospective) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 1288 patients (386 cases and 902 controls) and 4562 dental implants (1090 dental implants in cases and 3472 in controls). The summary odds ratio (OR = 1.43, P = 0.156) indicates that there is not enough evidence that bisphosphonates have a negative impact upon implant survival. According to the number need to harm (NNH), over 500 dental implants are required in patients receiving bisphosphonate treatment to produce a single implant failure.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that dental implant placement in patients receiving bisphosphonates does not reduce the dental implant success rate. On the other hand, such patients are not without complications, and risk evaluation therefore must be established on an individualized basis, as one of the most serious though infrequent complications of bisphosphonate therapy is bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. Given the few studies included in our meta-analysis, further prospective studies involving larger sample sizes and longer durations of follow-up are required to confirm the results obtained.

Indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients: update

The aim of this study was to review the current scientific literature in order to analyse the indications and contraindications of dental implants in medically compromised patients. A reference research was carried out on PubMed using the key words “implant” AND (oral OR dental) AND (systemic disease OR medically compromised), in articles published between 1993 and 2013. The inclusion criteria were the following: clinical studies in which, at least, 10 patients were treated, consensus articles, reviewed articles and meta-analysis performed in humans treated with dental implants, and which included the disease diagnosis. A total of 64 articles were found, from which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Cardiac systemic diseases, diabetic endocrine pathologies or controlled metabolic disorders do not seem to be a total or partial contraindication to the placement of dental implants. Tobacco addiction, and head and neck radiotherapy are correlated to a higher loss of dental implants. Patients suffering from osteoporosis undergoing biphosphonates therapy show an increased risk of developing bone necrosis after an oral surgery, especially if the drugs are administered intravenously or they are associated to certain concomitant medication.

Key words:Dental implants, medically compromised patient, systemic diseases.

Effects of alendronate on the peri-implant bone in rats

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of alendronate on the peri-implant bone in rat maxillae with the aid of micro-computed tomographic, histologic, and biochemical analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six male Sprague-Dawley rats were used. After extraction of the maxillary first molars, each rat was given periodic subcutaneous injections of either alendronate (alendronate group) or saline (control group). Customized implants were placed bilaterally 4 weeks after these injections. The rats were sacrificed at either 4, 8, or 12 weeks after implantation (4-, 8-, and 12-week groups, respectively; n = 6 rats per group). Microcomputed tomographic and histologic analyses were conducted for all rats. Biochemical analyses were performed at four time points for the 12-week groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups on microcomputed tomographic and histologic analyses. All of the measured biochemical parameters tended to decrease over time, with significant differences among some time points within each group. The serum osteocalcin level was significantly lower in the 12-week alendronate group than in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Three approaches were utilized in evaluating the effects of alendronate. It appears serum osteocalcin levels may serve as an adjuvant marker for this purpose, although further studies are required to confirm this.

Osseointegration of dental implants and osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy: a systematic review

Bisphosphonate (BP) drugs are a commonly prescribed group of medications used in the treatment of metabolic and oncologic bone disorders. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review in order to evaluate whether patients on BP therapy are appropriate candidates for dental implants as compared to patients not taking BP drugs with respect to successful implant osseointegration and the risk of developing bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Based on the current literature, a history of oral or intravenous BP use is not an absolute contraindication for dental implant placement, and dental implants can osseointegrate successfully in this patient population. Importantly, the studies currently available on this topic are of moderate to weak strength of evidence with inherent bias and limitations, and hence results must be interpreted in this context. Well-controlled studies with higher strength of evidence and larger population sizes are required to address this topic more accurately in the future.

The topical administration of bisphosphonates in implant surgery: a randomized split-mouth prospective study with a follow-up up to 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of the topical administration of bisphosphonates in implant therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients were selected for a split-mouth study. Inclusion criteria were: presence of a bilateral or total edentulism, ability to tolerate conventional implant procedures, older than 18 years. Ten patients were smokers. Ten patients were fully edentulous in both maxilla and mandible, 12 patients had fully edentulous maxilla or mandible, and 17 were bilaterally partially edentulous (9 in the mandible and 8 in the maxilla). A one-stage procedure was adopted in all cases. The prosthetic phase started 10 weeks after implant insertion. Each patient received implants on the control side and the test side, with insertion performed in the conventional way on the control side; on the test side, a 3% clodronate solution mixed with a surfactant (Tween-20) at a 1:3 ratio was topically administered both at the implant surface and at the implant site.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five implants were inserted. The test and control groups included 75 and 80 implants, respectively. The implant insertion torque was no less than 30 Ncm. A total of 7 implants failed in the control group (6 before loading and one after 12 months of loading). No failure occurred on the test side. By the 5-year follow-up, no further implant failure had been recorded. Overall, implant survival rates at 5 years for the test and control groups were, respectively, 100% and 91.3%, the difference being significant (p < .01). Mean marginal bone loss was 0.85 ± 0.71 mm in the test group and 1.12 ± 0.85 mm in the control group after 1 year of loading and stable thereafter. The difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The topical administration of bisphosphonates may positively affect implant survival in the preloading and postloading phases in partially and fully edentulous patients. However, a larger study population is needed to verify these promising clinical results.

Osteopathology induced by bisphosphonates and dental implants: clinical observations

OBJECTIVES

Although there are many reports about risk factors for the development of BP-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws, the role of dental implants as a local risk factor is still discussed, especially in patients with oral BP treatment. Until now, a few case reports and surveys display a possible minor risk in patients with oral BP therapy, whereas the avoidance of implant placement is generally accepted in patients with intravenous BP therapy.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In this study, the cases of 14 patients with osteonecrosis of the jaws in association with BP therapy and dental implant placement were analyzed carefully with a detailed literature review.

RESULTS

Of 14 patients, nine had underlying malignant disease and five patients had osteoporosis. In ten patients, implants were placed either in the posterior mandible or maxilla; the mean interval between implant insertion and disease onset was 20.9 months. Pain (n12) and signs of infection (n10) were the most common symptoms. Histologically, signs of infection were found in nine of 11 analyzed patients with presence of Actinomyces in six patients. Two patients turned out to have infiltration of underlying malignant disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Posteriorly placed implants seem to be of higher risk of development of osteonecrosis of the jaws. Not only the implant placement but also the inserted implant itself seems to be a continuous risk factor.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The herein elaborated risk factors help dentists plan dental rehabilitation with implants in this high-risk group of patients and indicate careful and regular dental recall.