Treatment of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw With Plasma Rich in Growth Factors After Dental Implant Surgery: A Case Report.

Oral bisphosphonates are commonly used to improve bone density in patients who suffer from a variety of pathologies. However, they have also been known to cause bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ). The aim of this clinical case presentation is to (1) determine whether the currently recommended length of time that oral bisphosphonates should be discontinued, before performing dental implant surgery, is sufficient to prevent BRONJ and (2) to describe an alternative treatment for BRONJ. A 65-year-old female patient developed BRONJ after receiving mandibular dental implants 5 months after discontinuing alendronic acid (Fosamax). The BRONJ was treated by surgical osteotomy and plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), and the patient was followed up with biweekly examinations, which included 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwashes and removal of any remaining necrotic bone. The dental implants were loaded 41 weeks after surgery and followed up with periapical radiographs and implant stability quotient measurements at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postloading. Although the Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons protocols for suspension of presurgical oral bisphosphonates were followed, this patient still developed BRONJ after implant surgery. While a multitude of treatments have been described in the literature, there is not enough scientific evidence to support any one treatment. Based on this clinical case, it can be concluded that the potential adverse effects of oral bisphosphonates on the jaws could be greater than expected and that treatment with PRGF produces promising results, although more long-term studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD - 0.04 mm [- 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD - 0.10 mm [- 0.16; - 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

Immediate occluding definitive partial fixed prosthesis versus non-occluding provisional restorations - 4-month post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of dental implants restored with definitive occluding partial fixed prostheses within 1 week, after implant placement with immediate non-occluding provisional restorations, which were to be replaced by definitive prostheses after 4 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty partially edentulous patients treated with one to three dental implants, at least 8.5 mm long and 4.0 mm wide inserted with a torque of at least 35 Ncm, were randomised in two groups of 25 patients each, to be immediately loaded with partial fixed prostheses. Patients of one group received one definitive screw-retained metal-ceramic prosthesis in occlusion within 1 week after placement. Patients of the other group received one non-occluding provisional acrylic reinforced prosthesis within 24 h after implant placement. Provisional prostheses were replaced after 4 months by definitive ones. The follow-up for all patients was 4-months post-loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, any complications, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, aesthetic evaluation by a clinician, patient satisfaction, chair time and number of visits at the dental office from implant placement to delivery of definitive restorations. RESULTS: No patient dropped out. Two immediately occlusally loaded implants with their related definitive prostheses (8%) failed early (difference in proportions = 0.08; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.19; P = 0.490). Four complications occurred in the occlusal group versus one in the non-occlusal group; (difference in proportions = 0.12; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.28; P = 0.349). Four months after loading, patients subjected to non-occlusal loading lost an average of 0.72 mm of peri-implant bone versus 0.99 mm of patients restored with occluding definitive partial fixed prostheses. There were no statistically significant differences for marginal bone level changes between the two groups (mean difference = -0.27 mm; 95% CI: -0.84 to 0.30; P = 0.349). The differences for aesthetic scores showed no statistical significance (8.26 versus 7.58; P = 0.445); the same was seen for aesthetics evaluated by patients (Mann-Whitney U test: P = 0.618). Patients in the non-occlusal group were significantly more satisfied with the function of their implant-supported prostheses (Mann-Whitney U test: P = 0.039). Significantly less chair time (mean difference = -28.4 min; 95% CI: -48.82 to -7.99; P = 0.007) and the number of visits (mean difference = -1.88; 95% CI: -2.43 to -1.33; P < 0.001) were required for the immediate definitive prosthesis group. CONCLUSION: This study did not provide a conclusive answer but may suggest that provisional prostheses non-occlusally immediately loaded may increase patient functional satisfaction, chair time and the number of visits, with respect to definitive prostheses immediately loaded in functional occlusion.