OBJECTIVE: This review was conducted to systematically assess the impact of bisphosphonates (BPs) and denosumab, used as anti-resorptive therapies, on the incidence of dental implant failure.
METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were performed in accordance with the described search protocol. Only articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The primary outcome was implant failure, while secondary outcomes included biological complications and comorbidities. Following data extraction, a quality assessment and meta-analysis were conducted.
RESULTS: Fourteen eligible studies were included in the analysis following a qualitative evaluation. BP administration, regardless of the timing of anti-resorptive therapy, did not significantly increase the risk of implant failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.34). Subgroup analysis revealed a slightly higher, although statistically insignificant, risk of failure in patients with a follow-up period of 3 years or more compared to those with a follow-up duration of less than 3 years (with ORs of 2.82 and 1.53, respectively). Due to a lack of eligible studies, a meta-analysis for denosumab could not be conducted.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that BP treatment does not compromise the survival of dental implants. Specifically, in patients with osteoporosis, implant failure rates were not significantly influenced by the administration of BPs before the placement of dental implants, suggesting that low-dose BP therapy may not contraindicate implant placement. Nevertheless, regular check-ups and maintenance periodontal treatment must not be neglected, and concomitant biological factors should be considered to ensure the long-term success of implant rehabilitation.

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disease characterised by reduced bone mass and deterioration of bone microarchitecture, underlying a higher risk of fragility fractures. Several options are available for its treatment, including both anti-resorptive and anabolic agents. The present review discusses and summarises the most recent literature on anabolic treatment, with a focus on abaloparatide, and on the assessment of fragility fracture risk, with a focus on trabecular bone score. Finally, we provide a discussion on the effects of different antiosteoporotic medications in terms of fragility fracture risk reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze osteoporosis medication prescribing trends across specialties in the context of a Bone Health Clinic.
BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis affects over 10 million adults in the US, taking a significant toll on patients and the healthcare system. Although screening methods and treatments are improving, the disease remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. This study aims to evaluate the prescribing trends of osteoporosis medication among department specialties to delineate the benefits of a bone health clinic.
METHODS: Retrospective data collection identified and analyzed patients within the Penn State Health system prescribed one of the following osteoporosis medications: Bisphosphonate, denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, or raloxifene. Date range: 4/18/2016 to 4/14/2021. Data collection identified the specialty origin of prescriptions for osteoporosis medications across various medical specialties (e.g., orthopaedics, family medicine, and internal medicine).
RESULTS: 10,736 prescription orders were issued to patients with an average age of 68 years. Non-Hispanic Caucasian patients received 88.6% of prescriptions, followed by Asian (3.4%) and African American (2.2%). Female patients accounted for 87.8% of all prescriptions. The Bone Health Clinic under two orthopaedic providers wrote 3,619 prescriptions, averaging 361.9 prescriptions per provider per year-marking the highest rate among specialties. The clinic prescriptions constituted 33.7% of all prescriptions across specialties. Orthopaedic surgery prescribed the most denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide prescriptions, and had the highest number of male osteoporosis patients compared to other specialties (15.6%), consequently prescribing the most male prescriptions (578).
CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a bone health clinic dedicated to osteoporosis management leads to significantly higher prescription rates per provider, increased utilization of anabolic therapies compared to other specialties, and more male patients being treated-an often-neglected population in osteoporosis.

Cases of relatively safe dental implant treatment in patients with low-volume bisphosphonate (BP) have been gradually reported. Although bone augmentation is commonly used when the bone volume is insufficient for implant placement, the studies and case reports regarding the safety of bone augmentation in patients treated with BP remain insufficient. Herein, we report a case wherein bone augmentation was performed after BP treatment with bone healing realized according to imaging, and we review the literature regarding BP and bone augmentation. A 67-year-old Japanese woman requested implant treatment for a hopeless lower right second molar. She had been taking minodronic acid hydrate (50 mg/4 wk) for 18 months to treat steroid-induced osteoporosis. After obtaining informed consent, tooth extraction and bone augmentation within the extraction socket were performed. The tooth was extracted atraumatically to preserve the surrounding alveolar bone, and the extraction socket was intensely curetted. Subsequently, the socket was filled with carbonate apatite granules and covered with a biodegradable membrane, and the wound was sutured without tension. Although protracted wound healing without any symptoms of infection was observed, the wound healed completely. No clinical symptoms were observed, the color of the mucosa at the site was healthy, and imaging findings at 6 months postoperation indicated that osteogenesis had progressed uneventfully.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of denosumab on (i) the incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D), and (ii) long-term health outcomes (microvascular [neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy] and macrovascular [cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident] complications, and all-cause mortality) in patients with T2D, before (iii) combining results with prior studies using meta-analysis.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data in a large global federated database (TriNetX; Cambridge, MA) was conducted from 331 375 patients, without baseline T2D or cancer, prescribed either denosumab (treatment, n = 45 854) or bisphosphonates (control, n = 285 521), across 83 healthcare organizations. Propensity score matching (1:1) of confounders was undertaken that resulted in 45 851 in each cohort. Secondary analysis further evaluated the impact of denosumab on long-term health outcomes in patients with T2D. Additionally, we systematically searched prior literature that assessed the association between denosumab and T2D. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using Cochrane-endorsed tools.
RESULTS: Denosumab (vs. bisphosphonates) was associated with a lower risk of incident T2D over 5 years (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.78-0.88]). Secondary analysis showed significant risk reduction in all-cause mortality (0.79 [0.72-0.87]) and foot ulceration (0.67 [0.53-0.86]). Also, pooled results from four studies (three observational, one randomized controlled trial) following meta-analysis showed a reduced relative risk (RR [95% CI]) for incident T2D in patients prescribed denosumab (0.83 [0.79-0.87]) (I2 = 10.76%).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest cohort study to show that denosumab treatment is associated with a reduced RR of incident T2D, as well as an associated reduced RR of all-cause mortality and microvascular complications, findings that may influence guideline development in the treatment of osteoporosis, particularly in patients who are at a high risk of T2D.

暂无摘要。

To map the current scientific landscape regarding the association/causality of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) after tooth extraction under bisphosphonate (BF) therapy to identify knowledge gaps and guide future research.
This review used the PCC strategy (P = Patient; C = Concept; C = Context).
The MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics, and gray literature databases were used.
Searches were conducted by two independent reviewers until April 2024. Studies involving prior BF use and tooth extraction in humans or animals were included. Among the 176 studies, 73 (41.4 %) were in animals, and 103 (58.5 %) were in humans. Brazil led in animal studies (n = 14; 19.1 %), while Italy led in human studies (n = 14; 13.6 %). Zoledronic acid was the most cited BF (79.4 % in animals; 34.9 % in humans), with intravenous administration being most frequent (38.3 % in animals; 35.9 % in humans). The mandible was the main extraction site (n = 36 in animals; n = 41 in humans). In 91.7 % of the animal studies, sequelae compatible with osteonecrosis signs and symptoms were observed, with bone necrosis being most common (n = 39; 53.4 %). In humans, 93.2 % of studies presented 239 sequelae, with bone necrosis (n = 53; 22.1 %) being the most cited. The main location of sequelae was the mandible (n = 36 in animals; n = 41 in humans).
Animal studies highlighted bone exposure, notably using murine models, with a significant Brazilian contribution. In human studies, bone necrosis was the main sequela of MRONJ, which has been reported by researchers in the Italy.
These findings underscore the importance of careful consideration and monitoring of patients who have a history of bisphosphonate use and who are undergoing tooth extraction, highlighting the potential risk of MRONJ.

暂无摘要。

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.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review seeks to evaluate the proportion of fragility fracture patients screened in secondary fracture prevention programs who were indicated for pharmacological treatment, received prescriptions for bone-active medications, and initiated the prescribed medication. Additionally, the study aims to analyze equity in pharmacological treatment by examining equity-related variables including age, sex, gender, race, education, income, and geographic location.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to ascertain the proportion of fragility fracture patients indicated for treatment who received prescriptions and/or initiated bone-active medication through secondary fracture prevention programs. We also examined treatment indications reported in studies and eligibility criteria to confirm patients who were eligible for treatment. To compute the pooled proportions for medication prescription and initiation, we carried out a single group proportional meta-analysis. We also extracted the proportions of patients who received a prescription and/or began treatment based on age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, location, and chronic conditions.
RESULTS: This review included 122 studies covering 114 programs. The pooled prescription rate was 77%, and the estimated medication initiation rate was 71%. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment initiation between the Fracture Liaison Service and other programs. Across all studies, age, sex, and socioeconomic status were the only equity variables reported in relation to treatment outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review emphasizes the need for standardized reporting guidelines in post-fracture interventions. Moreover, considering equity stratifiers in the analysis of health outcomes will help address inequities and improve the overall quality and reach of secondary fracture prevention programs.