Prevalence of bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaws in multiple myeloma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws (BP-ONJ) is an adverse effect of bisphosphonate treatment with varying reported incidence rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In two neighboring German cities, prevalence and additional factors of the development of BP-ONJ in multiple myeloma patients with bisphosphonates therapy were recorded using a retrospective (RS) and cross-sectional study (CSS) design. For the RS, all patients treated from Jan. 2000 - Feb. 2006 were contacted by letter. In the CSS, all patients treated from Oct. 2006 - Mar. 2008 had a physical and dental examination. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to evaluate all articles reporting on BP-ONJ prevalence. PubMed search terms were: bisphosphonat, diphosphonate, osteonecrosis, prevalence and incidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the RS, data from 81 of 161 patients could be obtained; four patients (4.9%) developed BP-ONJ. In the CSS, 16 of 78 patients (20.5%) developed BP-ONJ. All patients with BP-ONJ had received zoledronate; 12 of these had had additional bisphosphonates. All except one had an additional trigger factor (tooth extraction [n = 14], dental surgical procedure [n = 2], sharp mylohyoid ridge [n = 3]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of BP-ONJ may have been underestimated to date. The oral examination of all patients in this CSS might explain the higher prevalence, since even early asymptomatic stages of BP-ONJ and previously unnoticed symptomatic BP-ONJ were recorded. Since nearly all patients with BP-ONJ had an additional trigger factor, oral hygiene and dental care might help to reduce BP-ONJ incidence.</p

Osteopathology induced by bisphosphonates and dental implants: clinical observations

OBJECTIVES: Although there are many reports about risk factors for the development of BP-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws, the role of dental implants as a local risk factor is still discussed, especially in patients with oral BP treatment. Until now, a few case reports and surveys display a possible minor risk in patients with oral BP therapy, whereas the avoidance of implant placement is generally accepted in patients with intravenous BP therapy. PATIENT AND METHODS: In this study, the cases of 14 patients with osteonecrosis of the jaws in association with BP therapy and dental implant placement were analyzed carefully with a detailed literature review. RESULTS: Of 14 patients, nine had underlying malignant disease and five patients had osteoporosis. In ten patients, implants were placed either in the posterior mandible or maxilla; the mean interval between implant insertion and disease onset was 20.9 months. Pain (n12) and signs of infection (n10) were the most common symptoms. Histologically, signs of infection were found in nine of 11 analyzed patients with presence of Actinomyces in six patients. Two patients turned out to have infiltration of underlying malignant disease. CONCLUSIONS: Posteriorly placed implants seem to be of higher risk of development of osteonecrosis of the jaws. Not only the implant placement but also the inserted implant itself seems to be a continuous risk factor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The herein elaborated risk factors help dentists plan dental rehabilitation with implants in this high-risk group of patients and indicate careful and regular dental recall