-
"Spontaneous" medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw; two case reports and a systematic review.Australian Dental Journal Dec 2018Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse drug effect consisting of bone destruction of the maxilla and/or mandible. The most common...
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse drug effect consisting of bone destruction of the maxilla and/or mandible. The most common precipitating event described in the literature is the extraction of a tooth followed by "spontaneous" occurrence with no clear predisposing event. Current studies are investigating methods of managing dental extractions in patients at risk of MRONJ; however, no studies to date examine the aetiology and management of "spontaneous" MRONJ. This paper describes two cases of "spontaneous" MRONJ seen at the Dental Unit in the Alfred Hospital and systematically reviews the current literature. No significant interactions (P > 0.05) were detected between variables: age, sex, bone disease, antiresorptive, antiresorptive duration, jaw, location and stage. "Spontaneous" cases were commonly associated with the mylohyoid ridge, palatal tori and other anatomical sites, and tended to occur in those generally considered at low risk of developing MRONJ. The review suggests that perhaps the term "spontaneous" is a misnomer and thorough history taking is critical in establishing a precipitating event.
Topics: Aged; Alendronate; Antineoplastic Agents; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Jaw Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Osteonecrosis; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 30144095
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12648 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.Most studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Participant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.Bisphosphonates versus placeboBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).There was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.Results regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Bisphosphonates versus active comparatorMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).Intensive versus symptomatic treatmentThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.Inconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.
Topics: Aged; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteitis Deformans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004956.pub3 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Research :... Dec 2017We completed a systematic literature review of in vivo animal models that use arthrotomy-based methods to study particle-induced peri-implant osteolysis. The purpose of...
We completed a systematic literature review of in vivo animal models that use arthrotomy-based methods to study particle-induced peri-implant osteolysis. The purpose of the review was to characterize the models developed to date, to determine the questions addressed, to assess scientific rigor and transparency, and to identify gaps in knowledge. We probed three literature databases (Medline, Embase, and Scopus) and found 77 manuscripts that fit the search parameters. In the most recent 10 years, researchers mainly used rat and mouse models, whereas in the previous 20 years, large animal, canine, and rabbit models were more common. The studies have demonstrated several pathophysiology pathways, including macrophage migration, particle phagocytosis, increased local production of cytokines and lysosomal enzymes, elevated bone resorption, and suppressed bone formation. The effect of variation in particle characteristics and concentration received limited attention with somewhat mixed findings. Particle contamination by endotoxin was shown to exacerbate peri-implant osteolysis. The possibility of early diagnosis was demonstrated through imaging and biomarker approaches. Several studies showed that both local and systemic delivery of bisphosphonates inhibits the development of particle-induced osteolysis. Other methods of inhibiting osteolysis include the use of anabolic agents and altering the implant design. Few studies examined non-surgical rescue of loosened implants, with conflicting results with alendronate. We found that the manuscripts often lacked the methodological detail now advocated by the ARRIVE guidelines, suggesting that improvement in reporting would be useful to maximize rigor and transparency. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:2595-2605, 2017.
Topics: Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Osteolysis
PubMed: 28548682
DOI: 10.1002/jor.23619 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2017Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Primary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from studies on patients with symptomatic disease, and surgery is not always indicated. Other patients are unable to undergo surgery, and thus a medical treatment is warranted. This systematic review provides an overview of the existing literature on contemporary pharmaceutical options available for the medical management of primary hyperparathyroidism.
METHODS
Databases of medical literature were searched for articles including terms for primary hyperparathyroidism and each of the included drugs. Data on s-calcium, s-parathyroid hormone, bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD) and hard endpoints were extracted and tabulated, and level of evidence was determined. Changes in s-calcium were estimated and a meta-regression analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The 1,999 articles were screened for eligibility and 54 were included in the review. Weighted mean changes calculated for each drug in s-total calcium (mean change from baseline ± SEM) were pamidronate (0.31 ± 0.034 mmol/l); alendronate (0.07 ± 0.05 mmol/l); clodronate (0.20 ± 0.040 mmol/l); mixed bisphosphonates (0.16 ± 0.049 mmol/l); and cinacalcet (0.37 ± 0.013 mmol/l). The meta-analysis revealed a significant decrease of effect on s-calcium with time for the bisphosphonates (Coef. -0.049 ± 0.023, = 0.035), while cinacalcet proved to maintain its effect on s-calcium over time. Bisphosphonates improved BMD while cinacalcet had no effect.
DISCUSSION
The included studies demonstrate advantages and drawbacks of the available pharmaceutical options that can prove helpful in the clinical setting. The great variation in how primary hyperparathyroidism is manifested requires that management should rely on an individual evaluation when counseling patients. Combining resorptive agents with calcimimetics could prove rewarding, but more studies are warranted.
PubMed: 28473803
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00079 -
Journal of the American Geriatrics... Mar 2017To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of treatment options to reduce osteoporotic fracture risk in men.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a treatment for osteoporosis or low bone mineral density for adult men and reported fracture outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS
Men.
MEASUREMENTS
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. Information was extracted from included studies on participant sociodemographic characteristics, number of male participants, treatment evaluated, comparator for evaluated treatment, study duration, and fracture outcomes. Risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using measures recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles reporting results for 22 studies (including 4,868 male participants) met strict inclusion criteria. Fixed-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures with alendronate (relative risk (RR) = 0.328, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.155-0.692) and risedronate (RR = 0.428, 95% CI = 0.245-0.746) but not with calcitonin (RR = 0.272, 95% CI = 0.046-1.608) or denosumab (RR = 0.256, 95% CI = 0.029-2.238) than in controls. For bisphosphonates as a treatment category, meta-analyses demonstrated significantly lower risk of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.368, 95% CI = 0.252-0.537) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.604, 95% CI = 0.404-0.904) than in controls. The meta-analysis finding that bisphosphonates significantly reduce nonvertebral fracture risk was not robust to sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of vertebral and possibly nonvertebral fractures for men with osteoporosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates for reducing nonvertebral fracture risk and the efficacy of nonbisphosphonates for reducing vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in men with osteoporosis.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Denosumab; Humans; Male; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risedronic Acid; Spinal Fractures
PubMed: 28304090
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14668 -
Medicine Mar 2017Low bone mineral density (BMD) is a frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly in patients with Crohn disease (CD). The aim of our study is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Low bone mineral density (BMD) is a frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly in patients with Crohn disease (CD). The aim of our study is to determine the efficacy and safety of different drugs used to treat low BMD in patients with CD.
METHODS
PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. A random-effects model within a Bayesian framework was applied to compare treatment effects as standardized mean difference (SMD) with their corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI), while odds ratio (OR) was applied to compare adverse events with 95% CrI. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was calculated to make the ranking of the treatments for outcomes.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible. Compared with placebo, zoledronate (SMDs 2.74, 95% CrI 1.36-4.11) and sodium-fluoride (SMDs 1.23, 95% CrI 0.19-2.26) revealed statistical significance in increasing lumbar spine BMD (LSBMD). According to SUCRA ranking, zoledronate (SUCRA = 2.5%) might have the highest probability to be the best treatment for increasing LSBMD in CD patients among all agents, followed by sodium-fluoride (27%). For safety assessment, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) demonstrated no statistical difference between agents and placebo. The corresponding SUCRA values indicated that risedronate (SUCRA = 77%) might be the most safe medicine for low BMD in CD patients and alendronate ranked the worst (SUCRA = 16%).
CONCLUSIONS
Zoledronate might have the highest probability to be the best therapeutic strategy for increasing LSBMD. For the safety assessment, risedronate showed the greatest trend to decrease the risk of AEs. In the future, more RCTs with higher qualities are needed to make head-to-head comparison between 2 or more treatments.
Topics: Alendronate; Bayes Theorem; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Crohn Disease; Diphosphonates; Humans; Imidazoles; Network Meta-Analysis; Risedronic Acid; Sodium Fluoride; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 28296781
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006378 -
Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery &... Dec 2016To evaluate the current evidence in the literature on treatment strategies for degenerative lumbar spine fusion in patients with osteoporosis.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the current evidence in the literature on treatment strategies for degenerative lumbar spine fusion in patients with osteoporosis.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature from 1950 to 2015.
RESULTS
The review of the literature yielded 15 studies on the effect of treatment options for osteoporosis on lumbar fusion rates. This study evaluated only degenerative lumbar spine conditions and excluded deformity patients. One study demonstrated an association between low bone mass as measured by Hounsfield units and lower fusion rates. Six studies evaluated perioperative medical treatment of osteoporosis and showed higher fusion rates in patients treated with alendronate and teriparatide. The strongest evidence was for perioperative teriparatide. Eight studies evaluated surgical treatment strategies in patients with osteoporosis and showed that cement augmentation of pedicle screws and expandable pedicle screws demonstrated improved fusion rates than traditional pedicle screws. The strongest evidence was for expandable pedicle screws.
CONCLUSION
There are 15 articles evaluating osteoporosis in patients undergoing lumbar fusion and the highest level of evidence is for perioperative use of teriparatide.
PubMed: 27847678
DOI: 10.1177/2151458516669204 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2016Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax and Fosamax Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel and Actonel Once a Week, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk.
DATA SOURCES
For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty.
RESULTS
Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX.
LIMITATIONS
We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population.
CONCLUSIONS
Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Alendronate; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diphosphonates; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Imidazoles; Models, Econometric; Osteoporotic Fractures; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risedronic Acid; Risk Factors; Social Work; State Medicine; United Kingdom; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 27801641
DOI: 10.3310/hta20780 -
Rheumatology and Therapy Jun 2016Osteoporosis is an under-recognized problem threatening men. Bisphosphonates are the main treatment but their comparative efficacy is unclear for men with osteoporosis....
INTRODUCTION
Osteoporosis is an under-recognized problem threatening men. Bisphosphonates are the main treatment but their comparative efficacy is unclear for men with osteoporosis. Therefore, we performed this systematic review with network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence of comparative efficacy of bisphosphonates in men with osteoporosis.
METHODS
We completed network meta-analyses with a frequentist model to compare the efficacy of different bisphosphonates. Randomized controlled trials investigating bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis were included. The primary outcome was the rate of patients with a new vertebral fracture. The secondary outcome was the rate of patients with a non-vertebral fracture, which was defined as any fractures reported other than vertebral fractures. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed to compare bisphosphonates with placebo. We included open-label studies in the analyses as a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
Ten trials were included, using alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid. No significant difference was found between any pairs of alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid for both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid ranked as the most effective in preventing vertebral fracture in primary osteoporosis. Risedronate ranked best in preventing non-vertebral fracture in both primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. In the sensitivity analyses with the open-label studies, the ranking order did not change.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence for bisphosphonates used in men with osteoporosis is inadequate. On the basis of the current evidence, zoledronic acid is most effective at preventing vertebral fractures, while risedronate has the highest possibility to rank the first in preventing non-vertebral fracture in men with primary osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. More well-designed studies are needed to test our findings and to better know the comparative efficacy of bisphosphonate to prevent vertebral fracture in men with osteoporosis.
PubMed: 27747517
DOI: 10.1007/s40744-016-0030-6 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2017The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the management of periodontitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of bisphosphonate therapy as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the management of periodontitis.
METHODS
Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases) were searched up to and including July 2016. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD), and the secondary outcomes were changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and bone defect (BD) fill. The mean differences (MD) of outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable were calculated using random effect model.
RESULTS
Eight clinical studies were included. Seven studies used alendronate as an adjunct to SRP; of these, four studies used topical application and three used oral alendronate. Considering the effects of adjunctive bisphosphonates as compared to SRP alone, a high degree of heterogeneity for PD (Q value = 39.6, P < 0.0001, I = 87.38%), CAL (Q value = 13.65, P = 0.008, I = 70.71%), and BD fill (Q value = 53.26, P < 0.0001, I = 92.49%) was noticed among both the groups. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant PD reduction (MD = -1.18, 95% CI = -1.91 to -0.44, P = 0.002), CAL gain (MD = -0.69, 95% CI = -1.20 to -0.18, P = 0.008) and BD fill (MD = -2.36, 95% CI = -3.64 to -1.08, P < 0.001) for SRP + bisphosphonate treatment vs. SRP alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjunctive bisphosphonate therapy appears to be effective in managing periodontitis, however, due to the potential risk of osteonecrosis of the jaws and short-term follow-up of the studies, their clinical application is debatable.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Alendronate; Chronic Periodontitis; Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Diphosphonates; Humans; Root Planing
PubMed: 27718252
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13147