The dental implications of bisphosphonates and bone disease

The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.In 2002/2003 a number of patients presented to the South Australian Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit with unusual non-healing extraction wounds of the jaws. All were middle-aged to elderly, medically compromised and on bisphosphonates for bone pathology. Review of the literature showed similar cases being reported in the North American oral and maxillofacial surgery literature. This paper reviews the role of bisphosphonates in the management of bone disease. There were 2.3 million prescriptions for bisphosphonates in Australia in 2003. This group of drugs is very useful in controlling bone pain and preventing pathologic fractures. However, in a small number of patients on bisphosphonates, intractable, painful, non-healing exposed bone occurs following dental extractions or denture irritation. Affected patients are usually, but not always, over 55 years, medically compromised and on the potent nitrogen containing bisphosphonates, pamidronate (Aredia/Pamisol), alendronate (Fosamax) and zolendronate (Zometa) for nonosteoporotic bone disease. Currently, there is no simple, effective treatment and the painful exposed bone may persist for years. The main complications are marked weight loss from difficulty in eating and severe jaw and neck infections. Possible preventive and therapeutic strategies are presented although at this time there is no evidence of their effectiveness. Dentists must ask about bisphosphonate usage for bone disease when recording medical histories and take appropriate actions to avoid the development of this debilitating condition in their patients

Management of severe odontogenic infections in pregnancy

Background:  The objective of this study was to review the management of patients presenting with severe odontogenic infections and who are also pregnant. Methods:  A retrospective clinical audit was conducted of all female patients admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit from 1999 to 2009 with severe odontogenic infections. Pregnant patients were identified and their age, medical history, previous obstetric and gynaecological history, stage of current pregnancy, presenting infection, diagnosis and management were recorded, as well as the outcome of the pregnancy. Results:  A total of 346 female patients were admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital under the care of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Unit with an admission diagnosis of severe odontogenic infection and five were pregnant. Besides surgical and anaesthetic assessment, mother and foetus were assessed by the Obstetric and Gynaecology Unit. In all, five with severe infection were successfully resolved and four proceeded to a normal delivery with a healthy child. The remaining patient had an already planned therapeutic abortion. Conclusions:  Pregnant patients with severe odontogenic infections require urgent referral to a tertiary hospital with full surgical, anaesthetic and obstetric services. This allows appropriate management of the complex requirements of mother and foetus.D Wong, A Cheng, R Kunchur, S Lam, PJ Sambrook, AN Gos