No abstract

In 2003, the first reports describing osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in patients receiving bisphosphonates (BP) were published. These cases occurred in patients with cancer receiving high-dose intravenous BP; however, 5% of the cases were in patients with osteoporosis receiving low-dose bisphosphonate therapy. We present the results of a systematic review of the incidence, risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of BP associated ONJ. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies on BP associated ONJ in oncology and osteoporosis patients published before February 2008.All selected relevant articles were sorted by area of focus. Data for each area were abstracted by 2 independent reviewers. The results showed that the diagnosis is made clinically. Prospective data evaluating the incidence and etiologic factors are very limited. In oncology patients receiving high-dose intravenous BP, ONJ appears to be dependent on the dose and duration of therapy, with an estimated incidence of 1%–12% at 36 months of exposure. In osteoporosis patients, it is rare, with an estimated incidence < 1 case per 100,000 person-years of exposure. The incidence of ONJ in the general population is not known. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to confirm a causal link between low-dose BP use in the osteoporosis patient population and ONJ. We concluded BP associated ONJ is associated with high-dose BP therapy primarily in the oncology patient population. Prevention and treatment strategies are currently based on expert opinion and focus on maintaining good oral hygiene and conservative surgical intervention.

Objectives The aim of Working Group 3 was to focus on three topics that were assessed using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). These topics included the following: (a) the aesthetics of tooth and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses focusing on partially edentulous patients, (b) a comparison of fixed and removable implant‐retained prostheses for edentulous populations, and (c) immediate versus early/conventional loading of immediately placed implants in partially edentate patients. PROMs include ratings of satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (QHRQoL), as well as other indicators, that is, pain, general health‐related quality of life (e.g., SF‐36). Materials and methods The Consensus Conference Group 3 participants discussed the findings of the three systematic review manuscripts. Following comprehensive discussions, participants developed consensus statements and recommendations that were then discussed in larger plenary sessions. Following this, any necessary modifications were made and approved. Results Patients were very satisfied with the aesthetics of implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and the surrounding mucosa. Implant neck design, restorative material, or use of a provisional restoration did not influence patients’ ratings. Edentulous patients highly rate both removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses. However, they rate their ability to maintain their oral hygiene significantly higher with the removable prosthesis. Both immediate provisionalization and conventional loading receive positive patient‐reported outcomes. Conclusions Patient‐reported outcome measures should be gathered in every clinical study in which the outcomes of oral rehabilitation with dental implants are investigated. PROMs, such as patients’ satisfaction and QHRQoL, should supplement other clinical parameters in our clinical definition of success.

No abstract