Impact of bisphosphonate drugs on dental implant healing and peri-implant hard and soft tissues: a systematic review.

Introduction

Rationale

Implantology is a rehabilitation procedure aimed at those who have lost their natural teeth through the use of titanium fixture. Artificial teeth are designed to replace real teeth that are missing both in terms of aesthetics and chewing function. State-of-the-art dental implantology techniques, such as those practiced in dental clinics, allow permanent rehabilitation of chewing and avoid the hassles associated with the use of removable prostheses, ensuring an aesthetic result equal to that of natural teeth [ 1 , 2 ].

In very general, dental implant surgery consists of placement of a titanium dental implant into the bone of the affected dental arch with the aim of bone integration (osseointegrated implantology).Usually, the implant integration time varies according to the affected bone: maxilla (4–6 months); mandibular (3–4 months) [ 3 , 4 ].

There are several factors effecting the estimated healing time by the implantologist, that can slow down osseointegration [ 5 ]. Complete osseointegration of dental implants is successful in the vast majority of cases. International studies based on the scientific and rigorous evaluation of over 1,200,000 implants have indicated that the average success rate is over 98%. For smokers, the success rate drops to 85% [ 6 ]. The implantology intervention is one of the practices related to oral surgery, and represents a surgical intervention on the hard and soft tissues of the maxillary bones [ 7 , 8 ].

Systemic or general contraindications, on the other hand, have to do with the patient's systemic health and any pharmacological or radiation therapies. Among these, one that jumps to attention and that is often underestimated during a first dental visit is the current or past intake (considering their half-life) of bisphosphonate drugs. Bisphosphonates are a category of drugs that inhibit bone remodeling, which is why they are used for the treatment of various metabolic and oncological disorders, affecting bone tissue; osteoporosis, osteopenia, osteogenesis imperfecta, Paget's disease, multiple myeloma, malignant hypercalcemia and bone metastases following cancer [ 9 , 10 ].

Bisphosphonates are very effective drugs that reduce the incidence of fractures, as they increase bone density. They have the characteristic of binding to calcium and for this reason they are deposited in the bone tissue. Bisphosphonates can cause bone lesions of the maxilla and/or jaw associated with local signs and symptoms of various types and severities, such as ulceration of the oral mucosa that lines the bone, exposure of bone in the oral cavity, pain in the teeth and/or to the jaw/jaw bones, swelling or inflammation, numbness or a feeling of 'heavy jaw', increased tooth mobility, tooth loss [ 11 ]. Before undertaking any surgical-implant therapy, it is necessary to acquire and analyze a complete medical history of the patient and, in the case of the presence of bisphosphonate therapy, the duration of treatment must be confirmed, as well as the route of administration of the same.

Objectives

The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze literature to understand the impact of Bisphosphonate drugs on dental implant therapy, with the aim to evaluate different clinical and radiographic outcomes reported in literature. The type of studies that were taken under consideration included: studies with test and control groups, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), Controlled Trials and Multicentric studies, which evaluated the clinical differences between patients rehabilitated with dental implants who take these drugs or less, were included. This manuscript that brings together different clinical studies and evaluates different outcomes, aims to clarify this therapy in certain patients, providing a contribution where currently the literature appears conflicting.

Materials and methods

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria are as follows: Recent studies (last 15 years), to avoid the risk of running into drugs that are no longer used and safe. Human studies Studies on subjects with no other absolute contraindications to implant therapy Studies concerning completed implant-prosthetic therapy Studies which are present and legible or accessible: title-abstract-full text.

Information sources

The research sources are the most common and reliable scientific research channels according to the scientific community: Scopus Elsevier® Web of Science® Google Scholar® Pubmed® MDPI® database

Search strategy Selection process

The search strategy planned to insert the following word string in the information sources, according to the previous paragraphs: "(biphosphonate) AND (dental implant)".

Thanks to the filters of the sources of scientific information, it is possible to perform a quick screening of the results so as to reduce the work by the individual authors in case there are manuscripts not of interest with the topic. Some of the filters that were used included considering recent studies (15 years), human studies, clinical studies (RCTs, Multicentric, Clinical Trials). These filters have been applied to all used information sources engines.

Furthermore, recent works were considered, in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and only some types of studies were selected, using the filters already present in the scientific information sources.

Subsequently, once the studies were obtained, they were subjected to a first screening through independent reading by the authors of "title" and "abstract", and then the full text was read (logically, if they were not discarded earlier as they did not meet the inclusion criteria already when reading "title" or "abstract"). Authors independently analyzed results with this process: Title-Abstract-Full text reading.

The revision method is in accordance with the PRISMA statement, with methodology and subdivision in the manuscript according to their parameters, as well as with the presence of the PRISMA flow chart [ 12 – 14 ].

This review is registered at PROSPERO with ID number 342214 with date 25/06/2022. PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care.

As regards the identification of the study objective, he also made use of the PICO—Population Intervention Comparison Outcome system [ 15 ], with the following question:

Does implant therapy have different outcomes in patients who undergo bisphosphonate drug therapy than in patients who do not take bisphosphonates? and as additional questions:

What about clinical and radiographical outcomes of dental implant therapy (paragraph 2.4)?

Data items

The outcomes considered are all those extrapolated from the individual articles as outcomes: Bleeding on Probing (BoP); Probing Depth (PD); Mobility of dental implant; Thread exposure (TE); Bone Marginal loss; implant stability quotient (ISQ); Bone mineral density (BMD); Implant survival; Soft tissue condition.

Study risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias was assessed according to the studies and method proposed by Cochrane and Higgins et al. (RoB 2) [ 16 – 21 ].The risk of bias between the studies was assessed, in addition, as there were randomized clinical trials, the level of bias within the individual studies was assessed.

The analysis of the citations was carried out with the Fi-index Tool [ 22 ] on the first author using Scopus Elsevier® as a search engine. The pre and post index difference result is 0.35, low and tolerable given the inherence of the citations and the line of scientific research.

Synthesis methods

The studies were read by the authors individually and were subsequently discussed and analyzed, each author created tables and cards with the main results of all the articles included, these were reviewed and are exposed in the "results" and "discussion" sections. The synthesis was done manually by the authors, any doubts were clarified by a third expert author (G.C.).

Results

Study selection

The studies taken into consideration are the result of a careful analysis by the authors. From a first survey on scientific search engines, as explained in paragraph 3.2, 312 works were obtained. In this case there are studies dating back to 1978. Only the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), Multicentric studies and Clinical Trial studies are taken into consideration, obtaining a number of 273 results. Following an analysis of the results, by first reading titles and abstracts, and in the event of uncertainty of the full text by two independently authors, the results selected and compatible with the review criteria are 9. According to the review method used (see Materials and Methods section), the PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1 ) is presented. Some examples of the studies that were collected through the keywords by the use of scientific search engines, but that were excluded after an analysis by the authors are these: Aspenberg et al. [ 23 ] study, was about implant used for hip fracture and not about dental implant; Meidan et al. [ 24 ] paper was about the use of technetium 99 m-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy for the clinical evaluation of peri-implant tissue, and not correlated to bisphosphonate therapy and new dental implants insertion; Trbakovic et al. [ 25 ] manuscript was about the use of granular calcium phosphate compound and a composite bisphosphonate-linked hyaluronic acid-calcium phosphate hydrogel in a rabbit model for bone regeneration. Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart

Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the selected studies are included in Table 1 below respecting the following parameters (Table 1 ): Authors—Authors of the single study Year—Year of publication of the study Type of study—Article type Control Group—Describe the presence of a control group and type Follow-up—follow up time duration Table 1 Studies characteristics Authors Year Type of study Methodology Control group Follow up Abtahi et al. [ 26 ] 2019 RCT Double-blind, split-mouth Uncoated zoledronate dental implant 8 weeks Abtahi et al. [ 27 ] 2016 RCT Double blind, split-mouth Uncoated zoledronate dental implant 5 years Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] 2016 Multicentric Study – – 3 years Zuffetti et al. [ 29 ] 2015 RCT Split-mouth No topical administration of bisphosphonate 1 year Mozzati et al. [ 8 ] 2015 Clinical Trial – – 10 years López-Cedrún et al. [ 32 ] 2013 Multicentric Study – – 3 years Griffiths [ 33 ] 2012 RCT Split-mouth No bisphosphonate oral administration 18 months Abtahi et al. [ 34 ] 2012 RCT Double-blind, split-mouth Uncoated zoledronate dental implant 6 months Shabestari et al. [ 35 ] 2010 Multicentric Study – – 5 years

Results of individual studies

The results present in these selected studies will be listed below in Table 2 and divided as follows (Table 2 ): Authors—Authors of the single study Sample size—Sample size of the study Type of groups—subdivision of the groups and type Main outcomes results—principal data results of the study (separated by semicolon) Statistic—statistical data (respectively to “Main outcomes results" and separated by semicolon) Table 2 Selected study individual results Authors Sample size Type of groups Main outcomes results Statistic Abtahi et al. [ 26 ] 32 dental implants on 16 patients 1. Zolendronate coated dental implant 0.17 mm of marginal bone loss between groups P < 0.006 2. Uncoated dental implant No implant stability differences Abtahi et al. [ 27 ] 32 dental implants on 16 patients 1. Zolendronate coated dental implant Marginal bone loss difference between groups at 18 month was 0.50 mm P = 0.04 2. Uncoated dental implant Marginal bone loss difference between groups at 5 years was 0.34 mm P = 0.04 Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] 98 dental implants in 32 patients 1. Dental implants in 6 month alendronated administration stopping patients Dental implant success 98%; Prostheses success 98%; Survival rate 100%; Median marginal bone loss 1.35 mm; No differences between 1, 2 and 3 years of follow up on marginal bone loss Soft peri-implant tissue with positive parameters; Differences on 1, 2 o 3 years of follow up P = 0.059 Zuffetti et al. [ 29 ] 155 dental impla ts in 39 patients 1. Standard dental implant procedure Dental implant survival was 100% in test group and 91.3% in control group P = 0.001 2. Standard dental implant procedure + a 3% chlodronate and surfactant solution rinse both at the implant surface and implant site Marginal bone loss of 0.85 mm in test group and 1.12 mm in control group after one year P = 0.15 Marginal bone loss of 0.98 mm in test group and 1.26 mm in control group after 5 years P = 0.15 Mozzati et al. [ 8 ] 1267 dental implants on 235 patients 1. Oral bisphosphonate administred patients Dental implant failure rate of 6.8% – López-Cedrún et al. [ 32 ] 57 dental implants on 9 patients 1. Oral bisphosphonate administred patients – – Griffiths [ 33 ] 10 patients 1. Standard dental implant procedure Bone mineral density (BMD) evaluation was lower in oral bisphosphonate patients – 2. Standard dental implant procedure with 70 mg tablet or placebo of alendronate weekly for 6 months Abtahi et al. [ 34 ] 32 dental implants on 16 patients 1. Pamidronate and ibandronate coated dental implant Dental implant success rate of 100%; Larger implant stability quotient (ISQ) for bisphosphonate coated dental implant at 6 months 100% 2. Uncoated dental implant Bone marginal loss was higher in non-coated dental implants at 6 months P = 0.0001; P = 0.003 Shabestari et al. [ 35 ] 46 dental implants in 21 patients 1. Dental implant surgery in patients that started oral bisphosphonate therapy after healing Bleeding on Probing (BoP); Probing Depth (PD) Not significant differences between groups in all outcomes (P < 0.05) 2. Dental implant surgery in patient who undergone oral bisphosphonate therapy Mobility; Thread exposure (TE)

Results of syntheses

In Abtahi et al. [ 26 ] study, zoledronate coated vs uncoated dental implants were compared. These two types of implants were indistinguishable by a blinded operator. A total of 30 dental implants in 16 patients were placed. Implant stability values were constant over follow-up time, with no statistical differences. About blind qualitative scoring, 13 of the 15 control implants and two of 15 coated implants showed small marginal bone defects. A second study of Abtahi et al. [ 27 ] evaluated the same patients with 5 years of follow-up. Marginal bone loss increased over time in both groups, but results were satisfactory for test group. For example, at 5 years the bisphosphonate coated dental implants performed a 0.20 mm of marginal bone loss vs 0.70 of median value for dental implants in control group. Unfortunately, 2 patients died at 5 years follow up, so there are 4 dental implants missing (Table 3 ). Table 3 Abtahi et al. [ 26 , 27 ] studies dental implants bone marginal loss between groups X axis: bone marginal loss in mm; y axis: follow up time in months

Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] study evaluated the effect of dental implant surgery on bisphosphonate administered patients. After a pharmacological prophylaxis 98 dental implants were inserted (Table 4 ). Table 4 Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] dental implant surgery prophylaxis in bisphosphonate patients 6 months before surgery Suspension of the BPs before surgery and if possible after surgery Professional hygiene 7 days before and after surgery Amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, 1 tablet every 12 h (2 g for day) Metronidazole 250 mg; 2 tablets every 8 h (1.5 g for day) Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% (oral rinse) Day surgery Oral rinse with chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% for 1 min Flapless or mini-flap approach Copious irrigation during implants sites preparation Two-stage implants placement Post-surgical Ibuprofen 600 mg every 8 h for 2 days (later on if needed) Periodic (3–6 months) follow-up

Only one of 98 dental implants failed during the healing period in < 90 years old patients, and no other dental implants or prosthetic failures or complications occurred during follow-up period. 155 dental implants in 39 patients were placed in Zuffetti et al. [ 29 ] study. These patients were fully or partially edentulous. Prosthetic phase started 10 weeks after dental implant insertion, two groups were subdivided: test and control groups. Test group was characterized by a 3% chlodronate solution mixed with a surfactant (Tween-20) at a 1:3 ratio topically administered both at the implant surface and at the implant preparation bone site [ 30 ]. A total of 6 dental implant failed in control group vs zero in test group. Furthermore, results showed better results in test group than in control group regards: Implant survival, bone marginal loss and complications. Mozzati et al. [ 8 ] realized a very large sample size study about this topic. They evaluated more than 200 patients with oral bisphosphonate therapy and inserted more than 1000 dental implants after a standard antibiotic prophylaxis [ 31 ]. During 24 months follow-up, there were no BRONJ (Bisphosphonate related osteonecrosis of the jaw) cases. 16 dental implants failures were recorded on 16 different patients with absence of infection but represented by mobility. Authors, so highlighted patients risk factors related to a specific bisphosphonate therapy (risedronate) and other patients-related features as diabetes, corticosteroid therapy or smoking. Furthermore, regenerative surgery maneuvers or post-extractive dental implant surgery seems to represent a risk factor. López-Cedrún et al. [ 32 ] with their multicentric studies evaluated 9 patients with BRONJ associated to dental implants. Most of cases interested the posterior mandible with the presence of pain and swelling, with suppuration in other cases. The bone exposition was present, with radiolucent lesions at radiographical examination too. The treatments consisted of dental implant removal and bone sequestrectomy. Griffiths [ 33 ] in his pilot study, evaluated the differences in Bone Mass Density (BMD) around dental implants in patients who performed a therapy with oral bisphosphonates at time of dental implant surgery or after dental implant surgery. He performed CT scans and evaluated BMD with Hounsfield (HU) unit scale. A less evident decreasing trend in BMD surrounding an implant when alendronate was administered for 6 months after the implant had successfully undergone osseointegration for 6 months. Abtahi et al. [ 34 ] in their oldest study (2012), already evaluated the effect of bisphosphonate coated dental implants on bone tissue. In this case, dental implants were placed in a chamber, and then baked at 60 °C until 150 °C. This process took to have a cross-linked layer of fibrinogen with small amounts of pamidronate and ibandronate covalently bound to the titanium surface. They did not lose dental implants during follow-up time and there were no surgical complications. According to Authors, the bisphosphonate coated dental implants showed a larger increase in ISQ value, as showed in Table 2 . Marginal bone loss, showed better results in bisphosphonate coated implants vs uncoated ones (Table 5 ). Shabestari et al. [ 35 ] in their multicentric study, evaluated the effect and some survival parameters of dental implant surgery in two different groups of patients (Table 2 ). They did not show any differences on BoP, PD or TE between the group that received dental implants during bisphosphonate therapy and the group who became bisphosphonate therapy after healing. No one of the implants showed mobility and all patients were considered peri-implantitis free. According to Shabestari et al. [ 35 ], implant location, the presence of opposing dentition, or prosthetic rehabilitation type had no influence on clinical and radiological parameters after dental implant surgery in BP patients. Authors followed-up a disomogeneous group of patients for 5 years in some cases after implant insertion. Table 5 Bone level changes on dental implants affected by bisphosphonates X axis: marginal bone levels variations in mm; Y axis: time in months. Data sources have been specified

Reporting biases

The bias of the studies included in the review was assessed according to what is described in the materials and methods section.

Below, Table 6 further clarify the results of the risk of bias present, that could be defined as low. Table 6 Risk of bias definition Abtahi et al. [ 26 ] Abtahi et al. [ 27 ] Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] Zuffetti et al. [ 29 ] Mozzati et al. [ 8 ] López-Cedrún et al. [ 32 ] Griffiths [ 33 ] Abtahi et al. [ 34 ] Shabestari et al. [ 35 ] Random Sequence generation + + − + − − + + − Allocation concealment + + + + + + + + + Blinding of participants and personnel + + − − − − − + − Blinding of outcome data + + − − − − − − − Selective reporting + + + + + + + + + Other bias + + + + + + − + +

Certainty of evidence

Table 5 reports important data regarding changes in marginal bone levels around implants "associated" with bisphosphonate drugs. Somehow it is possible to easily identify a trend from this chart. Certainly, the marginal bone loss around dental implants, just like teeth, is constant and progressive, and is defined by the recent consensus conferences as approximately 0.1 mm per year [ 36 ]. However, already from Table 3 it is possible to highlight differences between implants coated with bisphosphonates and uncoated implants. This suggests that in some way the effect of these molecules contrasts bone resorption, even in this clinical condition. In Table 5 all the studies that took into consideration the marginal bone has been included, thus obtaining a homogeneous graph of results, which compared over time, show a trend and overlapping values. Logarithmic trend lines were also drawn, which somehow follow the results obtained by the individual authors, but show what could be the progression over time. Furthermore, in Table 7 below, those trend lines up to 15 years have been projected to understand how limited bone loss could be on implants, associated in some way with therapy with these drugs. Table 7 Trend lines regarding bone marginal loss on implants "associated" with bisphosphonates and non "associated" implants X axis: median bone marginal loss, Y axis: time in months

In this case (Table 6 ), the mean values of all studies with implants associated with bisphosphonate drugs were considered, admitting the missing values as 0. In the graph about dental implants not related to bisphosphonates, on the other hand, the parameter of 0.1 mm per year of bone loss was set. It is necessary to clarify that by "associated" with bisphosphonates it means either a patient undergoing drug therapy or an implant coated with these molecules. The data after 10 and 15 years actually, in the logarithmic trend line, show superimposable results. By carrying out a paired t-test with two samples, and inserting the values, in fact has been noticed that the result is not statistically significant. The two-tailed P value equals 0.1483. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Discussion

According to Abtahi et al. [ 26 ] there are no statistical differences between the use of bisphosphonate coated dental implant or uncoated ones during the early healing phase. Uncoated dental implants just presented more marginal bone loss than test group. Another study of Abtahi et al. [ 27 ] with 5 years of follow up, concludes that bisphosphonate coated dental implant could prolong preservation of the peri-implant marginal bone. Tallarico et al. [ 28 ] reported that bisphosphonate therapy in patients did not significantly affect implant survival and prosthetic rehabilitation success rate. Authors specify that an accurate treatment time selection and a minimally invasive surgical approach are required. Zuffetti et al. [ 29 ] showed how topical administration of bisphosphonate drugs could positively affect dental implants survival and pre and post loading phases. Mozzati et al. [ 8 ] reported no cases of BRONJ after dental implant surgery in oral bisphosphonate treated patients, these procedures so, could be safely done but attention to techniques that enhance and support healing as platelet concentrates. López-Cedrún et al. [ 32 ] in their study, showed how dental implant associated BRONJ have similar clinical features and outcomes of treatments of those seen in patients with BRONJ with no dental implants. Lesions may develop in early or late phase of dental implant or prosthetic rehabilitation. Griffith [ 33 ] concluded that bisphosphonate could suppress regional phenomenon related to healing if patients take these drugs before and at time of implant surgery, but these drugs could have positive effects after 6 months under normal conditions. Abtahi et al. [ 34 ] already in 2012, suggested that a thin bisphosphonate fibrinogen coating, could improve the osteointegration of dental implants in the human bone. Surely, according to authors, this could open new possibilities in orthopedic surgery, through osteoporotic bone and dental rehabilitation. Still many issues about bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis remain unclear, according to Shabestari et al. [ 35 ], this multicentric study did not show correlation between this pathology and dental implant surgery. However, the study had a big limitation, represented by a limited pool of patients and furthermore not all patients completed the same follow-up time.

Bisphosphonates are stable molecules analogous to inorganic pyrophosphates and have been shown to be effective in the treatment of osteolytic lesions associated with bone metastases, multiple myeloma, malignant hypercalcemia, Paget's disease and osteoporosis. Several publications in recent years have suggested that osteonecrosis of the jaw is associated with bisphosphonate therapy. Strategies for diagnosing and managing patients with bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw are very difficult. It is important for patients to be informed of the risk of this complication, so that they have the opportunity to assess the need for dental treatment before starting therapy [ 37 ]. If osteonecrosis of the jaw is present, management should be conservative: oral chlorhexidine and antibiotics. Surgical treatment should be reserved for those patients who are symptomatic. Preventive therapeutic measures must be taken before, during and after bisphosphonate treatment, as stated in the guidelines. Currently, it is a well-known fact that this type of BP molecules is in some way connected to bone necrosis, which is mostly seen in the jaws. This is a rare complication but, obviously, of considerable severity and difficult to treat. Bisphosphonates have a high affinity for bone tissue, in particular they act by inhibiting the activity of osteoclasts. The result will obviously be the reduction of bone matrix resorption. Although osteonecrosis has so far been reported mainly in patients undergoing intravenous administration of bisphosphonates, an increasing number of cases are reported among patients undergoing oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis or Paget's disease. The first reported cases of osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with bisphosphonate therapy date back to 2003 [ 11 ]. Osteonecrosis of the jaw or jaw is a disabling disease of a progressive nature and with little tendency to healing. The onset signs are very subtle and extremely variable and range from gum inflammation that does not heal, to the loss of a tooth, to the slow or non-healing of an extraction, to a periodontitis picture, to the presence of dental abscesses or fistulas in the mouth or externally, on the skin. The dental approach is fundamentally based on prevention and certainly on the direct relationship with the other specialists involved in patient management. In the event that some oral surgery interventions are necessary and cannot be postponed, the dentist decides under close advice and collaboration with the specialist doctor how to proceed for the treatment of infection, pain, in order to reduce/avoid the risk of osteonecrosis. adopting specific treatment protocols and using fewer traumatizing techniques for the tissues. Any dental extraction or surgical procedure should be completed before the start of bisphosphonate therapy, taking into account the time required for healing. The risk/benefit profile should be considered for each patient before starting chronic therapy and in cases where there are local or systemic risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw, the possibility of alternative estrogen therapy should be considered, such as in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Since the primary objective is the elimination of all potential sites of infection, patients should be informed on the best way to treat oral hygiene. In addition, regular dental visits should be scheduled [ 38 – 42 ].

Given that osteonecrosis of the jaw is more frequently associated with traumatic dental procedures for the bone, endodontic therapies should be preferred to dental extractions and invasive periodontal procedures in predisposed patients. Dental implants should also be avoided. As a result, literature shows that a careful examination of the patients under or previous bisphosphonate therapy before planning of dental insertions is very important for successful results. Even low, there is always a risk of developing bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw, as well as the risk failure of implants [ 43 ]. Additionally, some studies show that some types of bisphosphonate molecules may be more related to the risk of BRONJ if the patient receives a dental implant. For example, one molecule that is reported as more risky is risedronate. Other factors related to a higher risk of BRONJ in case of implant surgery are smoking, diabetes and the use of corticosteroids [ 8 ]. Before undertaking any surgical-implant therapy, it is necessary to acquire and analyze a complete medical history of the patient and in the case of the presence of bisphosphonate therapy, the duration of treatment must be confirmed, as well as taking into consideration the route of administration of the itself.

Limitations

The main limitation of this study is that the result represented was not retrieved directly from analysis of clinical cases, but the data was extrapolated from different studies which showed a scarce diversity of protocols among them, such as types of surgeries, year of publication, and type of drug taken by the patient. Unfortunately, even the outcomes of the individual studies are not easily superimposed and it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. All the single outcomes have been reported in the Table 2 with the corresponding statistical result. Only the overlapping outcomes were subjected to further statistical analysis. Despite the use of different sources of scientific information, often some manuscripts can be excluded from the filters of electronic search engines. It is also always important to bear in mind that some manuscripts may present different keywords, incorrect or not in accordance with the Medical Subject Headings (Mesh) word.

Conclusions

Thanks to this study it is possible to clarify the effects of these molecules on the bone, during and after the implant-prosthetic rehabilitation therapy.

Table 5 reports important data regarding changes in marginal bone levels around implants "associated" with bisphosphonate drugs. Somehow it is possible to easily identify a trend from this chart. Certainly, the marginal bone loss around dental implants, just like teeth, is constant and progressive, and is defined by the recent consensus conferences as approximately 0.1 mm per year [ 36 ]. However, already from Table 3 it is possible to highlight differences between implants coated with bisphosphonates and uncoated implants. This suggests that in some way the effect of these molecules contrasts bone resorption, even in this clinical condition. In Table 5 all the studies that took into consideration the marginal bone has been included, thus obtaining a homogeneous graph of results, which compared over time, show a trend and overlapping values. Logarithmic trend lines were also drawn, which somehow follow the results obtained by the individual authors, but show what could be the progression over time. Furthermore, in Table 7 below, those trend lines up to 15 years have been projected to understand how limited bone loss could be on implants, associated in some way with therapy with these drugs.

In this case (Table 6 ), the mean values of all studies with implants associated with bisphosphonate drugs were considered, admitting the missing values as 0. In the graph about dental implants not related to bisphosphonates, on the other hand, the parameter of 0.1 mm per year of bone loss was set. It is necessary to clarify that by "associated" with bisphosphonates it means either a patient undergoing drug therapy or an implant coated with these molecules. The data after 10 and 15 years actually, in the logarithmic trend line, show superimposable results. By carrying out a paired t-test with two samples, and inserting the values, in fact has been noticed that the result is not statistically significant. The two-tailed P value equals 0.1483. By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

The data extrapolated by this investigation offer an overview about guidelines to be followed in case of performing oral surgical treatment of bisphosphonates drug patients related. Implant surgery, if correlated with a suitable pharmacological prophylaxis, appears to be safe, for patients and for the predictability of our rehabilitations, the data show no statistically significant differences regarding the marginal bone loss around the implants, despite the values being slightly in favor. implants associated with bisphosphonates. Certainly, more randomized clinical trials, more multicentric studies, are needed to shed light on this condition that often limits the quality of life related to oral health (ORQoL) of our patients, and places the clinician in front of a dilemma and doubts that are still unresolved. full clarified by the guidelines.

Thanks to this study it is possible to clarify the effects of these molecules on the bone, during and after the implant-prosthetic rehabilitation therapy. Implant surgery, if correlated with a suitable pharmacological prophylaxis, appears to be safe, for patients and for the predictability of our rehabilitations, the data show no statistically significant differences regarding the marginal bone loss around the implants, despite the values ​​being slightly in favor. implants associated with bisphosphonates. Certainly, more randomized clinical trials, more multicentric studies, are needed to shed light on this condition that often limits the quality of life related to oral health (ORQoL) of our patients, and places the clinician in front of a dilemma and doubts that are still unresolved. full clarified by the guidelines.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, L.F.; writing—review and editing, C.D.A.; supervision, G.C, T.F.T. and G.O.; Project administration, M.C. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

No funding.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during the current study are not publicly available due to individual research work but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

No conflict of interest.

References

1. Diesendorf M The mystery of declining tooth decay Nature 1986 322 6075 125 129 10.1038/322125a0 3523258

2. Poole DF Newman HN Dental plaque and oral health Nature 1971 234 5328 329 331 10.1038/234329a0 4944482

3. Norcia A Cicciù M Matacena G Bramanti E Dental implant positioning by using the root way. A predictable technique for postextractive surgery Minerva Stomatologica 2016 65 6 393 402 27362811

4. Cicciù M Cervino G Terranova A Risitano G Raffaele M Cucinotta F Santonocito D Fiorillo L Prosthetic and mechanical parameters of the facial bone under the load of different dental implant shapes: a parametric study Prosthesis 2019 66 41 53 10.3390/prosthesis1010006

5. Urist MR Bone: formation by autoinduction Science 1965 150 3698 893 899 10.1126/science.150.3698.893 5319761

6. Chrcanovic BR Albrektsson T Wennerberg A Smoking and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Dent 2015 43 5 487 498 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.003 25778741

7. Lombardi T Berton F Salgarello S Barbalonga E Rapani A Piovesana F Gregorio C Barbati G Di Lenarda R Stacchi C Factors influencing early marginal bone loss around dental implants positioned subcrestally: a multicenter prospective clinical study J Clin Med 2019 8 8 66 10.3390/jcm8081168 PMC6723035 31382675

8. Mozzati M Arata V Giacomello M Del Fabbro M Gallesio G Mortellaro C Bergamasco L Failure risk estimates after dental implants placement associated with plasma rich in growth factor-Endoret in osteoporotic women under bisphosphonate therapy J Craniofac Surg 2015 26 3 749 755 10.1097/SCS.0000000000001535 25974785

9. Cicciù M Herford AS Juodžbalys G Stoffella E Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2 application for a possible treatment of bisphosphonates-related osteonecrosis of the jaw J Craniofac Surg 2012 23 3 784 788 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dbdd4 22565901

10. Nastro E Musolino C Allegra A Oteri G Cicciù M Alonci A Quartarone E Alati C De Ponte FS Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma and breast cancer Acta Haematol 2007 117 3 181 187 10.1159/000097876 17164581

11. Chadha GK Ahmadieh A Kumar S Sedghizadeh PP Osseointegration of dental implants and osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients treated with bisphosphonate therapy: a systematic review J Oral Implantol 2013 39 4 510 520 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00234 23964780

12. Liu H Zhou X Yu G Sun X The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure Int J Nurs Pract 2019 66 e12729 10.1111/ijn.12729 30790391

13. Tian JH Ge L Li L The PRISMA Extension Statement Ann Intern Med 2015 163 7 566 10.7326/L15-5144 26436628

14. Hutton B Salanti G Caldwell DM Chaimani A Schmid CH Cameron C Ioannidis JP Straus S Thorlund K Jansen JP Mulrow C Catala-Lopez F Gotzsche PC Dickersin K Boutron I Altman DG Moher D The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations Ann Intern Med 2015 162 11 777 784 10.7326/M14-2385 26030634

15. da Costa Santos CM de Mattos Pimenta CA Nobre MR The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2007 15 3 508 11 10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023 17653438

16. Bachelet VC Pardo-Hernandez H Quality of reporting and risk of bias of randomized clinical trials published in Spanish and Latin American journals Medwave 2019 19 1 e7573 10.5867/medwave.2019.01.7573 30816879

17. Savovic J Turner RM Mawdsley D Jones HE Beynon R Higgins JPT Sterne JAC Association Between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study Am J Epidemiol 2018 187 5 1113 1122 10.1093/aje/kwx344 29126260 PMC5928453

18. Yang ZR Sun F Zhan SY Risk of bias assessment: (1) overview Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2017 38 7 983 987 28738479 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2017.07.027

19. Mansournia MA Higgins JP Sterne JA Hernan MA Biases in randomized trials: a conversation between trialists and epidemiologists Epidemiology 2017 28 1 54 59 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000564 27748683 PMC5130591

20. Higgins JP Altman DG Gotzsche PC Juni P Moher D Oxman AD Savovic J Schulz KF Weeks L Sterne JA The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2011 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217 PMC3196245

21. Higgins JPT Altman DG Gøtzsche PC Jüni P Moher D Oxman AD Savović J Schulz KF Weeks L Sterne JAC The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2011 343 d5928 10.1136/bmj.d5928 22008217 PMC3196245

22. Fiorillo L Fi-index: a new method to evaluate authors Hirsch-index reliability Publ Res Q 2022 6 66

23. Aspenberg P Malouf J Tarantino U García-Hernández PA Corradini C Overgaard S Stepan JJ Borris L Lespessailles E Frihagen F Papavasiliou K Petto H Caeiro JR Marin F Effects of teriparatide compared with risedronate on recovery after pertrochanteric hip fracture: results of a randomized, active-controlled, double-blind clinical trial at 26 weeks J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016 98 22 1868 1878 10.2106/JBJS.15.01217 27852903 PMC5551693

24. Meidan Z Weisman S Baron J Binderman I Technetium 99m-MDP scintigraphy of patients undergoing implant prosthetic procedures: a follow-up study J Periodontol 1994 65 4 330 335 10.1902/jop.1994.65.4.330 8195977

25. Trbakovic A Hedenqvist P Mellgren T Ley C Hilborn J Ossipov D Ekman S Johansson CB Jensen-Waern M Thor A A new synthetic granular calcium phosphate compound induces new bone in a sinus lift rabbit model J Dent 2018 70 31 39 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.009 29258851

26. Abtahi J Henefalk G Aspenberg P Impact of a zoledronate coating on early post-surgical implant stability and marginal bone resorption in the maxilla-A split-mouth randomized clinical trial Clin Oral Implants Res 2019 30 1 49 58 10.1111/clr.13391 30565741

27. Abtahi J Henefalk G Aspenberg P Randomised trial of bisphosphonate-coated dental implants: radiographic follow-up after five years of loading Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 45 12 1564 1569 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.001 27688166

28. Tallarico M Canullo L Xhanari E Meloni SM Dental implants treatment outcomes in patient under active therapy with alendronate: 3-year follow-up results of a multicenter prospective observational study Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 27 8 943 949 10.1111/clr.12662 26178697

29. Zuffetti F Testori T Capelli M Rossi MC Del Fabbro M The topical administration of bisphosphonates in implant surgery: a randomized split-mouth prospective study with a follow-up up to 5 years Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015 17 Suppl 1 e168 e176 10.1111/cid.12151 24107257

30. Cervino G Fiorillo L Iannello G Santonocito D Risitano G Cicciù M Sandblasted and acid etched titanium dental implant surfaces systematic review and confocal microscopy evaluation Materials 2019 12 11 1763 10.3390/ma12111763 PMC6600780 31151256

31. Cervino G Cicciù M Biondi A Bocchieri S Herford AS Laino L Fiorillo L Antibiotic prophylaxis on third molar extraction: systematic review of recent data Antibiotics 2019 8 2 53 10.3390/antibiotics8020053 PMC6627726 31052566

32. López-Cedrún JL Sanromán JF García A Peñarrocha M Feijoo JF Limeres J Diz P Oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws in dental implant patients: a case series Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013 51 8 874 879 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.06.011 23866309

33. Griffiths GR Bone density around endosseous implants in patients taking alendronate: a pilot study Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 2012 32 3 e101 e108 22408779

34. Abtahi J Tengvall P Aspenberg P A bisphosphonate-coating improves the fixation of metal implants in human bone. A randomized trial of dental implants Bone 2012 50 5 1148 1151 10.1016/j.bone.2012.02.001 22348981

35. Shabestari GO Shayesteh YS Khojasteh A Alikhasi M Moslemi N Aminian A Masaeli R Eslami B Treister NS Implant placement in patients with oral bisphosphonate therapy: a case series Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010 12 3 175 180 19438964 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00150.x

36. Duan X-B Wu T-X Guo Y-C Zhou X-D Lei Y-L Xu X Mo A-C Wang Y-Y Yuan Q Marginal bone loss around non-submerged implants is associated with salivary microbiome during bone healing Int J Oral Sci 2017 9 2 95 103 10.1038/ijos.2017.18 28621324 PMC5518974

37. Jeffcoat MK Safety of oral bisphosphonates: controlled studies on alveolar bone Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006 21 3 349 353 16796276

38. Schmitt CM Buchbender M Lutz R Neukam FW Oral implant survival in patients with bisphosphonate (BP)/antiresorptive and radiation therapy and their impact on osteonecrosis of the jaws. A systematic review Eur J Oral Implantol 2018 11 Suppl 1 S93 s111 30109302

39. Kumar MN Honne T Survival of dental implants in bisphosphonate users versus non-users: a systematic review Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2012 20 4 159 162 23495556

40. Troiano G Zhurakivska K Muzio LL Laino L Cicciù M Russo LL Combination of bone graft and resorbable membrane for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis J Periodontol 2018 89 1 46 57 28895779 10.1902/jop.2017.170241

41. Fama F Cicciu M Sindoni A Nastro-Siniscalchi E Falzea R Cervino G Polito F De Ponte F Gioffre-Florio M Maxillofacial and concomitant serious injuries: an eight-year single center experience Chin J Traumatol Engl Ed 2017 20 1 4 8 10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.11.003 PMC5343103 28209449

42. Sortino F Cicciù M Strategies used to inhibit postoperative swelling following removal of impacted lower third molar Dent Res J 2011 8 4 162 171 10.4103/1735-3327.86031 PMC3221082 22135686

43. Ata-Ali J Ata-Ali F Peñarrocha-Oltra D Galindo-Moreno P What is the impact of bisphosphonate therapy upon dental implant survival? A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 27 2 e38 46 10.1111/clr.12526 25406770