Lack of evidence in reducing risk of MRONJ after teeth extractions with systemic antibiotics

Italian position paper (SIPMO-SICMF) on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ)

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to describe the 2023 update position paper on MRONJ developed by the Italian Societies of Oral Pathology and Medicine (SIPMO) and of Maxillofacial Surgery (SICMF).

METHODS

This is the second update following the 2013 and 2020 Italian position papers by the Expert panel, which is a representation of the two scientific societies (SIPMO and SICMF). The paper is based on an extensive analysis of the available literature from January 2003 to February 2020, and the subsequent review of literature conducted between March 2020 and December 2022 to include all new relevant published papers to confirm or modify the previous set of recommendations.

RESULTS

This position paper highlights the main issues of MRONJ on risk estimates, disease definition, diagnostic pathway, individual risk assessment, and the fundamental role of imaging in the diagnosis, classification, and management of MRONJ.

CONCLUSION

The Expert Panel confirmed the MRONJ definition, the diagnostic work-up, the clinical-radiological staging system and the prophylactic drug holiday, as recognized by SIPMO-SICMF; while, it presented novel indications regarding the categories at risk of MRONJ, the prevention strategies, and the treatment strategies associated with the therapeutic drug holiday.

How we manage medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) are integral to managing patients with advanced cancer. They improve quality of survival by reducing skeletal-related events, treating hypercalcaemia and chemotherapy-induced bone loss (Coleman in Clin Cancer Res 12: 6243s-6249s, 2006), (Coleman in Ann Oncol 31: 1650-1663, 2020). Two decades ago, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) was first reported following BMA therapy (Marx in J Oral Maxillofac Surg 61: 1115-1117, 2003). The risk of MRONJ extends over a decade following BMA treatment with bisphosphonates, complicating dental care such as extractions. In addition, MRONJ has been reported following additional therapies such as antiangiogenic agents, cytotoxic agents, immunotherapy, and targeted agents. The use of BMAs in the curative and adjuvant cancer setting is increasing, consequently the implication of MRONJ is growing. Over the past 20 years, the literature has consolidated major risk factors for MRONJ, the pathophysiology and management strategies for MRONJ. Our review aims to document the development of MRONJ preventative and management strategies in cancer patients receiving a BMA. The authors advocate the incorporation of dental oncology strategies into contemporary cancer care, to optimise long-term quality of survival after cancer treatment.

What Is the Appropriate Antibiotic Administration During Tooth Extractions in Patients Receiving High-Dose Denosumab?

PURPOSE

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) occasionally occurs following tooth extractions in cancer patients receiving denosumab (Dmab). However, there are currently no established guidelines for perioperative antibiotic administration during tooth extraction in these patients. The primary objective was to develop guidelines for the dose and frequency of antibiotics during tooth extraction by investigating the correlation between the current status of antibiotic administration and the development of MRONJ.

METHODS

This study included 68 cancer patients receiving high-dose Dmab who had tooth extractions between 2012 and 2022 at 10 hospitals. The relationship between the way of perioperative antibiotic administration and the development of MRONJ was analyzed. A P-value < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

There was considerable variability across hospitals and surgeons regarding the type, dosage, and duration of antibiotic administration. Amoxicillin (AMPC) was the most commonly used antibiotic. Focusing exclusively on teeth extracted under AMPC administration, MRONJ developed in 21 out of 123 teeth (17.0%). No significant relationship was found between the development of MRONJ and the dosage or duration of perioperative AMPC administration.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative antibiotic administration alone may not be sufficient to prevent MRONJ. Therefore, a single preoperative dose is likely adequate for effective and appropriate AMPC administration.　.

A Systematic Review on the Role of Antibiotics and Analgesics in Systemically Ill Patients Undergoing Tooth Extraction

Antibiotics are commonly prescribed as a preventive measure, particularly post-tooth extraction, aiming to minimize the risk of infection. Preemptive analgesia functions by disrupting the nervous system's ability to encode pain stimuli, thus preventing the formation of pain memory. Dentists often recommend analgesics and antibiotics either as adjuncts or sole treatments for various dental conditions, offering both efficacy and cost-effectiveness. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science Direct, and Lilac, using MeSH terms relevant to the role of antibiotics and analgesics in systemically ill patients undergoing tooth extraction. Out of 178 articles screened, 83 underwent full-text assessment for eligibility, and six were selected for qualitative analysis. The review process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring methodological rigor and transparent reporting. Across diverse study populations, the role of antibiotics and analgesics consistently demonstrated a statistically significant impact. Hence, the utilization of analgesics and antibiotics plays a pivotal role in preventing infection following tooth extraction in systemically ill patients, thereby promoting optimal oral hygiene and overall health.

Oral health conditions in patients under antiresorptive therapy are comparable to unexposed during supportive periodontal care

OBJECTIVES

To investigate oral health and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients under antiresorptive therapy (ART) during supportive periodontal care (SPC) considering history of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 100 patients (50 receiving ART (exposed) and 50 without ART (unexposed)) in regular SPC were enrolled for a clinical oral examination and the evaluation of OHRQoL using the OHIP-G14-questionnaire. History of MRONJ was assessed by anamnesis and reviewing patient records.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant group differences in age (exposed: 70.00 ± 9.07 versus unexposed: 71.02 ± 8.22 years), sex, distribution of systemic diseases and duration of SPC (on average 8.61 ± 5.73 years). Number of teeth (21.02 ± 5.84 versus 21.40 ± 5.42), DMFT (18.38 ± 3.85 versus 17.96 ± 4.08), probing pocket depth (2.31 ± 0.20 versus 2.38 ± 0.26), clinical attachment level (3.25 ± 0.76 versus 3.46 ± 0.58) and bleeding on probing (15.07 ± 11.53 versus 15.77 ± 13.08) were also not significantly different. The OHIP-G14 sum-score was significantly higher in exposed participants (6.10 ± 6.76 versus 3.62 ± 5.22, p = 0.043). History of MRONJ was prevalent in 8% of patients under ART. Periodontal/peri-implant-related MRONJ were reported in three participants with cancer (n = 1 before and n = 2 after active periodontal therapy). History of MRONJ due to endodontic/restorative reasons was reported in one patient with osteoporosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients under ART in SPC demonstrated similar clinical periodontal and dental status but lower OHRQoL compared to unexposed (not statistically significant). Patient awareness of the MRONJ-risk and appropriate preventive measures should be ensured.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

SPC in osteoporotic patients under ART appeared safe regarding MRONJ, but further investigations on the MRONJ-risk in patients with different risk-profiles are necessary.

STUDY REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT04192188).

Anti-resorptive therapy in the osteometabolic patient affected by periodontitis. A joint position paper of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SIOT) and the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology (SIdP)

This joint report from the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SIOT) and the Italian Society of Periodontology and Implantology (SIdP) aims for a consensus around the scientific rationale and clinical strategy for the management of osteoporotic patients affected by periodontitis who are undergoing anti-resorptive (AR) therapy to manage the risk of the occurrence of a medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ). Osteoporosis and periodontitis are chronic diseases with a high prevalence in aging patients, and they share some of the same pathogenetic mechanisms based upon inflammation. Available evidence shows the relationship among osteoporosis, AR agents, periodontitis and implant therapy in relation to the incidence of MRONJ. Uncontrolled periodontitis may lead to tooth loss and to the need to replace teeth with dental implants. Tooth extraction and surgical dental procedures are recognized as the main risk factors for developing MRONJ in individuals taking AR therapy for osteometabolic conditions. Although the incidence of MRONJ in osteometabolic patients taking AR therapy may be as low as 0.9%, the increasing prevalence of osteoporosis and the high prevalence of periodontitis suggest that this potential complication should not be overlooked. Good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines are proposed that aim at a more integrated approach (prescriber, dentist, periodontist and dental hygienist) in the management of periodontitis patients undergoing AR therapy for osteometabolic disorders to reduce the risk of MRONJ. Dental professional and prescribers should educate patients regarding the potential risk associated with the long-term use of AR therapy and oral health behavior.

Comparison of Different Antibiotic Regimes for Preventive Tooth Extractions in Patients with Antiresorptive Intake-A Retrospective Cohort Study

In the present study, the impacts on success rates between three different antibiotic regimes in patients receiving preventive tooth extraction during/after antiresorptive treatment were compared. For the retrospective analysis, we enrolled patients who had undergone tooth extraction from 2009 to 2019 according to the specified preventive conditions under antiresorptive therapy. Three antibiotic regimens were distinguished: (Group 1) intravenous for 7 days, (Group 2) oral for 14 days, and (Group 3) oral for 7 days of application. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw at 12 weeks after surgery. A total of 760 patients and 1143 extraction regions were evaluated (Group 1 n = 719; Group 2 n = 126; Group 3 n = 298). The primary endpoint showed no significant difference in the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw between the groups studied (Group 1 n = 50/669 (7%); Group 2 n = 9/117 (7%); Group 3 n = 17/281 (6%); p = 0.746). Overall, the success rate was 93% after intervention when preventive measures were followed. With the same success rate, a reduced, oral administration of antibiotics seems to be sufficient regarding the possible spectrum of side effects, the development of resistance and the health economic point of view.

Location and Gender Differences in Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Patients Treated with Antiresorptive and Antineoplastic Drugs Undergoing Dentoalveolar Surgical, Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

In the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis and more generally of neoplastic and metabolic pathologies affecting bone tissues, antiresorption drugs such as bisphosphonates and monoclonal antibody are used. Bisphosphonates have been linked to cases of osteonecrosis of the jaws since 2003 by Marx, with more and more evidence over the next two decades; together with bisphosphonate drugs, cases relating to the use of monoclonal drugs have been subsequently added. Among the main independent risk factors, we have extraction procedures in oral surgery that can affect both the mandible and the maxilla and the anterior or posterior sectors. The incidence of MRONJ treated with oral bisphosphonates ranges from 0.5% to 3% according to studies; this incidence would appear to be higher in patients treated with antiresorptive agents with neoplastic diseases. Many pathologies including those in which antiresorptive drugs are used show differences in prevalence in relation to sex; similarly, there could be differences in the incidence of cases of osteonecrosis based on gender in patients undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and trial sequential analysis was to identify and quantify whether there is a proportionally greater risk of MRONJ in male or female subjects and whether there is evidence of greater involvement of osteonecrosis at several extraction sites, differentiating them into mandibular or maxilla and in the anterior or posterior sector. The revision protocol followed the indications of the Cochrane Handbook, and were recorded in Prospero, while the drafting of the manuscript was based on PRISMA. The results of the systematic review, after the study identification and selection process, included a total of 24 studies. The results of the meta-analysis reports: odds ratio (random effects model): 1.476 (0.684, 3.184) between male and female; odds ratio (random effects model): 1.390 (0.801, 2.412) between mandible and maxillary, and an odds ratio value of 0.730 (0.250, 2.137) between the anterior and posterior extraction sites. In conclusion, we can see that there was a trend in the onset of MRONJ as a complication of dentoalveolar surgical procedures, which proportionally mostly involved the male sex and the posterior mandibular sectors, however, this trend must be further confirmed by additional studies.

Risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental extractions in patients receiving antiresorptive agents - A retrospective study of 240 patients

This study investigated the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental extractions in patients receiving antiresorptive agents for osteoporosis or bone metastases. 240 patients with a median drug exposure of 43 months were retrospectively studied. The incidence of MRONJ after dental extraction in the osteoporosis cohort was 2.7 % per person-year (95 % CI 1.6-4.6 %) (n = 13/126), and for the bone metastases cohort 26.4 % per person-year (95 % CI 20.4-34.2 %) (n = 58/114). 92 % of MRONJ cases were stage 1. Dental infection as the reason for extraction increased the osteonecrosis risk in the osteoporosis (OR 22.77; 95 % CI 2.85-181.62; p = 0.003) and bone metastases cohorts (OR 2.72; 95 % CI 1.28-5.81; p = 0.010). Using leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin reduced this risk by 84 % (p = 0.003), as did antibiotics use by 86-93 % (p = 0.013). Within the bone metastases cohort, an interval since last administration of at least 3 months reduced risk of MRONJ (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.72-0.97; p = 0.018). Mucosal healing occurred in 11/13 patients (84.6 %; 95 % CI 54.5-98.1 %) with osteoporosis and 31/58 patients (53.4 %; 95 % CI 40.0-66.7 %) with bone metastases. In conclusion, though the MRONJ risk in this selected population taking antiresorptive agents and presenting to the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery clinic for a dental extraction is considerable and higher in those with dental infections, preventive measures such as antibiotics and use of LRPF membranes may significantly reduce that risk.

Management of Tooth Extraction in Patients Taking Antiresorptive Drugs: An Evidence Mapping Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a well-known severe adverse reaction of antiresorptive, antiangiogenic or targeted therapies, and usually occurs after tooth extraction. This review is aimed at determining the efficacy of any intervention of tooth extraction to reduce the risk of MRONJ in patients taking antiresorptive drugs, and present the distribution of evidence in these clinical questions.

METHODS

Primary studies and reviews were searched from nine databases (Medline, EMBase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, WOSCC, Inspec, KCI-KJD, SciELO and GIM) and two registers (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov) to 30 November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROBIS tool in reviews, and the RoB 2 tool and ROBINS-I tool in primary studies. Data were extracted and then a meta-analysis was undertaken between primary studies where appropriate.

RESULTS

Fifteen primary studies and five reviews were included in this evidence mapping. One review was at low risk of bias, and one randomized controlled trial was at moderate risk, while the other eighteen studies were at high, serious or critical risk. Results of syntheses: (1) there was no significant risk difference found between drug holiday and drug continuation except for a subgroup in which drug continuation was supported in the reduced incidence proportion of MRONJ for over a 3-month follow-up; (2) the efficacy of the application of autologous platelet concentrates in tooth extraction was uncertain; (3) there was no significant difference found between different surgical techniques in any subgroup analysis; and (4) the risk difference with antibacterial prophylaxis versus control was -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.29.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to demonstrate that a drug holiday is unnecessary (and may in fact be potentially harmful) in dental practice. Primary closure and antibacterial prophylaxis are recommended despite limited evidences. All evidence have been graded as either of a low or very low quality, and thus further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to answer this clinical question.

Interventions for managing medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw

BACKGROUND

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs. To assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed. We have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ. Prophylaxis of MRONJ Five RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ. One RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated. Dentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants).  Treatment of MRONJ Eight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates.  One RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants).  Healing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants).  Three RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants).   Two RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants).

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw One open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low. There is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending. Treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw The available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.

A Comparison of Pre-Emptive Co-Amoxiclav, Postoperative Amoxicillin, and Metronidazole for Prevention of Postoperative Complications in Dentoalveolar Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different oral antibiotics for prevention of dry socket and infection in adults following the surgical extraction of teeth under LA. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted from 10 September 2020 until 10 May 2021. Forty-six patients were randomly allocated to three groups. Sixteen patients were in the postoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) group, fifteen in the preoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) plus postoperative metronidazole (500 mg) group and fifteen in the preoperative co-amoxiclav (625 mg) plus postoperative amoxicillin (500 mg) group. Evaluation of the postoperative signs of alveolar osteitis and infection was made by a dental surgeon five days postoperatively. Evaluation of the post-surgical extraction pain was made by patients immediately and five days postoperatively on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS). Furthermore, difficulty of surgery was recorded for all patients immediately postoperatively using (VAS). Results: all antibiotics used in this study were effective. Only 15% of patients had painful alveolar osteitis and 2% had oral infections. There was no significant decrease in the number of patients with severe alveolar osteitis or infection for co-amoxiclav plus metronidazole and co-amoxiclav plus amoxicillin groups compared to co-amoxiclav group at 5 days post-operation (p-values: 0.715, 0.819 & 0.309). Clinically, metronidazole was more effective in protecting the extracted tooth socket from alveolar osteitis compared to co-amoxiclav and amoxicillin. Moreover, there were significant decreases in mean pain scores at 5 days post-operation compared with the levels of pain immediately after surgery (p-value: 0.001). Conclusions: Administration of a single preoperative dose of co-amoxiclav with a full postoperative dose of amoxicillin or metronidazole was more effective than conventional treatment with postoperative co-amoxilcalv in reducing the incidence of both alveolar osteitis and infection after surgical extractions. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Interestingly, patients in metronidazole group had the lowest incidence of dry socket.