-
Iranian Journal of Public Health Jul 2022We aimed to review the systematic economic evaluation of denosumab versus than alternative drugs and oral bisphosphonates of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
We aimed to review the systematic economic evaluation of denosumab versus than alternative drugs and oral bisphosphonates of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women and help health system policy makers for prioritizing and optimally allocate limited health resources.
METHODS
We examined the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ProQuest. Strategy search was designed based on keywords. Inclusion criteria were: studies that conducted economic evaluation denosumab compared to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Cost-effectiveness studies conducted using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach; studies with available full-text papers; and studies written in English and published between 2010 and 2020. After selecting articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted and the results were summarized. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the CHEERS checklist.
RESULTS
Among 214 initial studies, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. The study agreed interval ranged from 3 months to 5 years. The costs investigated in the studies were direct medical costs. In most studies, the use of denosumab significantly prevented fractures.
CONCLUSION
Denosumab is generally more cost-effective than alternative drugs and oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, strontium ranelate, ibandronate, and untreated).
PubMed: 36248303
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v51i7.10084 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with bone and mineral metabolism. In this study we evaluated the comparative efficacies and safety of osteoporosis... (Review)
Review
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with bone and mineral metabolism. In this study we evaluated the comparative efficacies and safety of osteoporosis medications in patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation, and make recommendations for the best choice of osteoporosis treatment among patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation. We systemically searched for randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to June 2020. Network-meta analysis was used to compare the relative effectiveness of different treatments. A random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was expected. The safety of different treatments was also evaluated in terms of reported major adverse events. A total of 17 studies with data from 10,214 patients who had stage 2-5 CKD, were receiving dialysis, or had a history of kidney transplantation were included in the network meta-analysis. Treatment with teriparatide, denosumab, alendronate, and raloxifene were all associated with a significantly reduced risk of fractures compared to treatment with placebos [teriparatide: odds ratio (OR) = 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10-0.35; denosumab: OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58; alendronate: OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92; raloxifene: OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.67]. The rank probability and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values suggested that teriparatide ranked the highest for improvement in vertebral bone mineral density (BMD) (SUCRA = 97.8%), whereas denosumab ranked the highest for improvement in femoral neck BMD (SUCRA = 88.3%). Teriparatide and denosumab seem to be the most effective treatments for preventing bone loss and reducing the risk of fracture in our network comparison. However, because of the limitations and potential biases in the reviewed studies, there is still some uncertainty about the best treatment options for osteoporosis in patients with CKD or a history of kidney transplantation. : [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020209830].
PubMed: 35222037
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.822178 -
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery May 2021Atypical femoral fractures are the femoral fractures located anywhere between the lesser trochanter and the supracondylar flare of the femur. Long-term bisphosphonates,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atypical femoral fractures are the femoral fractures located anywhere between the lesser trochanter and the supracondylar flare of the femur. Long-term bisphosphonates, as the most common preventive and treatment medications for osteoporosis, are thought to have an important role in these fractures. Most of the fractures should be treated surgically, and the complications are considerable.
METHODS
We searched Medline, CENTRAL, Embase, and DART on February 26, 2020. One author reviewed and retrieved citations from these four databases for irrelevant and duplicate studies, and two other authors independently extracted data from the studies and rated their quality.Patients with surgical treatment of bisphosphonate-related atypical femoral fracture, according to the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research definition, were included. Animal studies, case reports, studies with high-energy trauma, pathological fracture, or malignancy-related fractures were excluded.
RESULTS
In total, 316 patients (348 fractures) were included in this study. Mean age of patients was 70.47 years, and 97.5% of them were female. Duration of using bisphosphonates was 4.04 to 8.8 years, and Alendronate was the most common type. Moreover, 65.27% and 34.72% of the reported fractures were in diaphyseal and subtrochanteric, respectively. Moreover, the most common fixation type was intramedullary. Rate of complication was 17.52%, and the most frequent one was non-union, followed by implant failure. The main limitation of this research was that most of the studies did not have a high level of evidence.
CONCLUSION
An increase in the rate of atypical femoral fracture with its challenging management makes it an important issue to be noted by orthopedic surgeons. Based on the results of this study, subtrochanteric fractures might have more complications post-operatively and are suggested to be operated on by more experienced surgeons. It was also found that extra-medullary fixation increases the risk of complications. Future studies on union time, outcomes of different surgical methods, and teriparatide therapy may help shed more light on the surgical management of these fractures.
PubMed: 34239955
DOI: 10.22038/abjs.2020.52698.2608 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022. We performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains. Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant Seven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately. Adults Three trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children The single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life. Bisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant One trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates. Before any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cystic Fibrosis; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteoporosis; Pamidronate; Quality of Life; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36625789
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002010.pub5 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2023Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative...
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.
METHODS
A literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.
RESULTS
Of 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Diphosphonates; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 36738425
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01239-2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2024Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both...
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.
METHODS
The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.
RESULTS
Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.
FUTURE WORK
Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.
LIMITATIONS
Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.
FUNDING
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Topics: Humans; Diphosphonates; Alendronate; Zoledronic Acid; Osteoporotic Fractures; Osteoporosis
PubMed: 38634483
DOI: 10.3310/WYPF0472 -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of alendronate combined with step 2 of periodontal therapy in reducing probing pocket depth,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Added effect of 1% topical alendronate in intra-bony and inter-radicular defects as part of step II periodontal therapy: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of alendronate combined with step 2 of periodontal therapy in reducing probing pocket depth, improving clinical attachment level, and reducing bone defect depth in intra-bony and inter-radicular defects.
METHODS
RCTs with more than 6 months follow-up were included in this study. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. In addition, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were used to aggregate the available evidence.
RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Topical application of alendronate during second step of periodontal therapy significantly improved PD and CAL.
CONCLUSION
Local application of alendronate may confer a beneficial effect when applied during step II of periodontal therapy even if long term studies are needed to confirm these results.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Considering the emerging role of host-inflammatory response in treatment of periodontitis and the antiresorptive and osteostimulative properties of bisphosphonates, several studies are focusing on the role of alendronate as an addition to non-surgical periodontal therapy.
Topics: Alendronate; Alveolar Bone Loss; Diphosphonates; Humans; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35062940
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02044-1 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2023To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) compared to SRP alone or combined with placebo.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out using MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles up to October 2022 in addition to hand searches. All longitudinal studies that evaluated the effect of subgingival application of antimicrobial and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as adjuncts to SRP compared to SRP alone or SRP + placebo with at least 3 months of follow-up were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included. Superior clinical treatment outcomes were shown when alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, simvastatin, and tetracycline (only at 3 months) were utilized in furcation defects in conjunction with SRP alone or SRP + placebo. Significant improvement was reported in radiographic bone defect depth and defect depth reduction when SRP was supplemented with alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, and simvastatin.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive subgingival administration of medications and host-modulating agents in furcation defects may confer additional clinical and radiographic benefits than non-surgical periodontal treatment alone. Future investigations are needed to confirm their long-term effectiveness.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Local host modulators and antimicrobials may be used supplementary to enhance the clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes of conventional periodontal therapy in furcation defects.
Topics: Humans; Furcation Defects; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Alendronate; Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Root Planing; Treatment Outcome; Simvastatin
PubMed: 36729235
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04871-0 -
Brazilian Oral Research 2024The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket...
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal species, different age ranges, diverse teeth extracted, and exposure or not to ovariectomy contributed to the lack of parity of the selected studies. Our results indicated that alendronate monotherapy negatively affects the early phase of wound healing after tooth extraction in preclinical studies, suggesting that the bone resorption process after tooth extraction in animals treated with alendronate might impair the bone healing process of the extraction socket. In conclusion, alendronate administration restrains bone resorption, thereby delaying alveolar socket healing . Future studies should be conducted to validate these findings and to better understand the effects of alendronate therapy on oral tissues.
Topics: Alendronate; Tooth Extraction; Animals; Wound Healing; Tooth Socket; Bone Density Conservation Agents
PubMed: 38747825
DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0038 -
Journal of Oral Biology and... 2021Previous systematic reviews showed additional benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates (BP) in the treatment of periodontitis. In contrast, it is unclear the effect of BP in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Previous systematic reviews showed additional benefit of adjuvant bisphosphonates (BP) in the treatment of periodontitis. In contrast, it is unclear the effect of BP in patients with diabetes and smokers, its pooled effect when administered locally or systemically is also unknown.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to systematically review the literature about the use of BP as adjuvant to nonsurgical scaling and root planning (SRP).
METHODOLOGY
This study followed the PRISMA guideline. This study included randomized clinical trials that administered locally or systemically BPs as adjuvant for periodontal treatment. Five databases were used. Meta-analyses were performed, using the pooled mean differences (MD) for clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD). Standard mean difference (SMD) was used for radiographic assessment (RADIO). Subgroup analyses were performed for locally delivered meta-analyses, considering diabetes and smoking exposure.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. It was showed MD of 1.52 mm (95%CI: 0.97-2.07) and 1.44 mm (95%CI: 1.08-1.79) for PPD reduction and CAL gain, respectively, for locally delivered BP. BP was not able to provide significant improvements in smokers (subgroup analysis) when considering CAL (MD: 1.37; 95%CI: -0.17-2.91) and PPD (MD: 1.35; 95%CI: -0.13-2.83). Locally delivered BP also improved significantly the RADIO assessments (SMD: 4.34; 95%CI: 2.94-5.74). MD for systemically administered BP was 0.40 mm (95%CI: 0.21-0.60), 0.51 mm (95%CI: 0.19-0.83) and 1.05 (95%CI: 0.80-1.31) for PPD, CAL and RADIO, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The administration of BP in adjunct to SRP may result in additional clinical effects.
PubMed: 33537188
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2021.01.008