No abstract

The evolution of implant hardware and improvement of treatment strategies during the last years have affirmed dental implant-supported concepts as a valuable treatment option for patients with a history of radiation in the head and neck region.

ObjectiveBisphosphonate-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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionSuccessful 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.

Ultrasound transmission velocity (UTV) in isotropic material as a measure for the modulus of elasticity was correlated to mechanical properties. Changes in micromechanical properties of radiated teeth and influence of the oral cavity were to be evaluated nondestructively. UTV was measured in extracted teeth after 36 Gy and 62 Gy of in situ (enorally, with no contact to the oral cavity) and in vitro irradiation. Relative to controls, teeth subjected to 62 Gy in vivo showed higher UTV values for dentine and enamel. Sound teeth irradiated with 60 Gy in situ also showed higher UTV values for enamel, whereas dentine values were not significantly different from those of control. The mechanical properties of teeth irradiated in vitro were affected only after high experimental doses of up to 500 Gy. The difference between in vivo and in vitro mechanical properties may be due to radioxerostomia-induced damages as well as the status of dentine vitality. This supports the concept of direct radiation-induced damage in synergy with radioxerostomia-induced caries.