Effectiveness of surgery and hyperbaric oxygen for antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A subgroup analysis by disease stage

Reduction of MRONJ risk after exodontia by virtue of ozone infiltration: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Exodontia is commonly considered as a risk factor for the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals exposed to bone modifying agents. This study was aimed at assessing the efficiency and safety of a gaseous oxygen-ozone mixture as an adjuvant to a standard exodontia to reduce the risk of MRONJ development.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, phase II, single-center clinical trial involving 117 patients at risk of MRONJ was conducted. The study protocol tested injections of an oxygen-ozone mixture in the post-extraction site. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: oxygen-ozone therapy, and standard tooth extraction protocol. Post-extraction wound healing was assessed using the Inflammatory Proliferative Remodeling (IPR) Wound Healing Scale.

RESULTS

The oxygen-ozone therapy group exhibited a significant improvement in wound healing post-extraction during the inflammatory and proliferative phases, as indicated by the IPR scale scores at 3-5 days (p = 0.006) and 14 days (p < 0.001) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oxygen-ozone therapy shows promise in improving post-extraction healing in patients at risk of MRONJ. Future studies with larger sample sizes and multicenter collaborations are recommended to confirm the validity of these findings and explore the long-term efficacy of ozone therapy.

Bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaws: Clinical and forensic aspects

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current knowledge in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and other relevant clinical and forensic aspects of a potentially severe complication known as medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) while synthesizing state-of-the-art information on bisphosphonates and introducing a possible differential diagnosis.

DESIGN

An extensive search was conducted in PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine) without a time or language constraint, focusing on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, site specificity, signs and symptoms, differential diagnosis, prevention, and forensic aspects of MRONJ. All types of original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, opinion articles, guidelines, and letters to editors were considered to produce a complete review on this subject.

RESULTS

MRONJ prevention relies on a multidisciplinary approach and is critical since truly effective treatments are lacking. This therapeutic challenge is partly due to uncertainty regarding this condition's pathophysiology. Differential diagnosis of osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with krokodil abuse, one of the most dangerous and homemade psychoactive illicit substances, should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research into the etiology and site specificity of MRONJ is encouraged, aiming to develop novel treatment prospects. Indeed, comprehending this would allow for increased efficacy and therapeutic options while emphasizing the importance of prevention. In addition, we advocate for greater consensus among the various societies regarding MRONJ's treatment and management.

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.

Nonexposed antiresorptive agent-related osteomyelitis of the jaw: a single-center cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The nonexposed variant of antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (ARONJ) presents with nonspecific clinical findings. The diagnosis of nonexposed ARONJ poses a critical challenge, and there is little evidence regarding its treatment and outcomes. This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes in patients with nonexposed antiresorptive agent-related osteomyelitis of the jaw (AROMJ). The terms ARONJ and AROMJ were used separately in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled patients with nonexposed AROMJ (osteomyelitis of the jaw without bone exposure associated with antiresorptive agents) with partial reference to an existing position paper on ARONJ. The initiating event of osteomyelitis was limited to periodontitis. Based on the findings of bone scintigraphy, panoramic radiography, computed tomography, and histopathological examination, we also used the hierarchical diagnostic criteria (HDC) for osteomyelitis of the jaw.

RESULTS

There were 58 confirmed cases of nonexposed AROMJ based on the HDC. All patients had sufficient clinical findings to be diagnosed with nonexposed AROMJ as osteomyelitis underwent extraction with bone debridement. The healing rate was 93.1% (54/58). Univariable analysis showed a strong association between the healing status and malignant disease, while multivariable analysis showed no strong association between them.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study had a relatively large sample size of patients with nonexposed AROMJ. The primary disease in patients with nonexposed AROMJ may not have a strong association with the healed status of the lesion. Based on its high healing rate, extraction with bone debridement in confirmed nonexposed AROMJ may prevent progression.

Current Trends in Adjuvant Therapies for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a refractory disease, and a standard protocol for its treatment has not yet been established. In addition, owing to the old age of MRONJ patients and various complications, treatment goals focus on relieving the symptoms and improving the quality of life. For this reason, different treatments such as conservative, surgical, and adjunctive treatments have been attempted. In particular, adjunctive treatment, which is effective for promoting healing and reducing recurrence, is gaining increasing interest, and several studies and clinical trials related to it have been published. Representative adjuvant therapies include teriparatide, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2, hyperbaric oxygen, photobiomodulation and platelet concentrates. All have generally shown beneficial effects; however, no standard protocol for adjunctive treatment exists. Therefore, in this literature review, we briefly summarized the different adjuvant therapies and reviewed clinical reports to help decide whether to use adjuvant therapies in treating patients with MRONJ.