Outcome of healing after dental implant placement in patients with cancer on high-dose antiresorptive medications: a prospective feasibility study

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.

Clinical Performance of Implant-Supported Prostheses in the Rehabilitation of Patients Previously Treated for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws (MRONJ): A Systematic Review

There is a lack of consensus on managing resultant bone and soft tissue defects or on restoring oral function and aesthetics following medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) lesion healing. This clinical challenge presents a dilemma for practitioners. Removable prostheses pose a recurrence risk if poorly fitted and may inadequately restore function or aesthetics in cases of significant bone defect. Dental implant-supported prostheses could enhance function and quality of life, though their risks and indications are not well-defined. This systematic review examines the clinical outcomes and complications associated with implant-supported rehabilitations post-MRONJ surgery. This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations and it was pre-registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023492539).

Medication-Related Osteonecrosis: Why the Jawbone?

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) has emerged as a complication of anti-resorptive medications. Despite its low incidence rate, this problem has gained attention in recent years due to its devastating consequences and lack of preventive strategy. The fact that MRONJ incidence has been exclusive to the jawbones, despite the systemic effect of anti-resorptive medications, could be a starting point to unravel the multifactorial pathogenesis of this condition. This review aims to negotiate the question of why the jawbone is more susceptible to MRONJ than other skeletal sites. Approaching the problem from this perspective could provide new directions for the prevention of MRONJ and expand our understanding of the unique oral microenvironment.

Impact of local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers on peri‐implant diseases

BACKGROUND

Strong evidence suggests the infectious nature of peri-implant diseases occurring in susceptible hosts. Epidemiological reports, though, indicate that peri-implantitis is a site-specific entity. Hence, the significance of local factors that may predispose/precipitate plaque accumulation and the impact of systemic drivers that alter the immune response are relevant in the prevention and management of peri-implant disorders.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present review is to shed light on the significance of local and systemic factors on peri-implant diseases, making special emphasis on the associations with peri-implantitis.

METHODS

The biologic plausibility and supporting evidence aiming at providing a concluding remark were explored in the recent scientific literature for local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers related to peri-implant diseases.

RESULTS

Local predisposing factors such as soft tissue characteristics, implant position and prosthetic design proved being strongly associated with the occurrence of peri-implant diseases. Hard tissue characteristics, however, failed to demonstrate having a direct association with peri-implant diseases. Robust data points toward the strong link between residual sub-mucosal cement and peri-implant diseases, while limited data suggests the impact of residual sub-mucosal floss and peri-implantitis. Systemic drivers/habits such as hyperglycemia and smoking showed a strong negative impact on peri-implantitis. However, there is insufficient evidence to claim for any link between metabolic syndrome, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and obesity and peri-implant diseases.

CONCLUSION

Local predisposing/precipitating factors and systemic drivers may increase the risk of peri-implant diseases. Therefore, comprehensive anamnesis of the patients, educational/motivational programs and exhaustive prosthetically-driven treatment planning must be fostered aiming at reducing the rate of biological complications in implant dentistry.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw and successful implant treatment in a patient on high-dose antiresorptive medication: A case report

OBJECTIVES

Oral rehabilitation can be a challenge in patients on high-dose antiresorptive medication (HDAR), especially if the alveolar anatomy has changed due to previous medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) resection. In healthy patients, dental implant treatment has found wide acceptance in prosthetic rehabilitation as it increases the patient's oral health-related quality of life. However, it is considered contraindicated in patients on HDAR due to the risk of MRONJ, although a recent feasibility study indicates that implant treatment may indeed be an option in these patients. The aim of the present case report is to illustrate the risk of MRONJ in a patient with cancer on HDAR and to discuss the reasons behind the outcomes of the implant treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient with prostate cancer with bone metastases on high-dose denosumab therapy with previous MRONJ had four implants inserted bilaterally in the maxilla (14, 13, 23, 24). Two identical implant-supported screw-retained cantilever bridges were fabricated. The patient was followed for more than 1 year.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Peri-implantitis, and/or MRONJ, was diagnosed around two of the implants (23, 24), probably induced by crestal bone trauma from a healing abutment and/or a misfitting prosthetic reconstruction. A peri-implantitis operation was performed, but without the desired response, and the two implants (23, 24) were later removed in an MRONJ resection. The implants on the other side of the maxilla (14, 13) remained without complications. Dental implant treatment is feasible in patients on HDAR, but comorbidities (e.g., diabetes mellitus) and polypharmacy (e.g., chemotherapy and steroids) may add to the risk of implant failure. Minimal trauma surgery and prosthodontics are crucial to increase the chance of successful healing in an HDAR patient.