RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) linked to bisphosphonate treatment has specific characteristics that render its therapeutic management challenging for clinicians. Poor response to standard treatment makes it essential to take special precautions when treating this type of disease; therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis and/or antibiotic therapy have been proposed as effective and helpful tools in these situations. OBJECTIVES: This article seeks to assess published evidence in order to evaluate the different protocols used for antibiotic prophylaxis and/or antibiotic therapy in the general context of patients treated with bisphosphonates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature review of the last 10 years was carried out in PubMed using the following keywords: "antibiotic prophylaxis and osteonecrosis," "bisphosphonates AND osteonecrosis AND dental management," "bisphosphonate AND osteonecrosis AND antibiotic prophylaxis AND oral surgery." A total of 188 articles were obtained, of which 18 were ultimately selected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In patients treated with oral and intravenous bisphosphonates without chemotherapy-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to oral surgery is an important tool to avoid osteonecrosis and promote healing of the affected area. If the patient previously exhibited chemotherapy-associated osteonecrosis after tooth extraction, antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated to prevent recurrent osteonecrosis and promote healing of the extraction site. If chemotherapy-associated osteonecrosis is already present, antibiotic therapy is a vital part of conservative management to reduce the symptomatology of MRONJ and keep it from worsening. Finally, a lack of clinical data and randomized controlled trials makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate protocol for the various clinical situations studied. Key words:Bisphosphonates, antibiotic prophylaxis, maxillary osteonecrosis, antibiotic treatment.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw caused by bisphosphonates is an exposure of necrotic bone with more than eight weeks of evolution that is attributable to bisphosphonates and no prior radiation therapy. Its etiopathogenesis remains unknown, although there are two hypotheses that may explain it: the drug's mechanism of action, and the risk factors that can lead to osteonecrosis. There is a wide range of treatment options for managing chemotherapy-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw, from conservative treatments to surgical procedures of varying levels of invasiveness, which are sometimes supplemented with adjuvant therapies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to group the therapeutic options for osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) into seven different protocols and to evaluate their effectiveness in relation to stage of ONJ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature review was carried out in PubMed following the PRISMA criteria. A total of 47 were collected after compiling a series of variables that define ONJ, applied treatments, and the clinical results obtained. Results and DISCUSSION: The 47 articles selected have a low to average estimated risk of bias and are of moderate to good quality. According to the data obtained, Protocol 3 (conservative treatment, clinical and radiological followup, minimally invasive surgical treatment, and adjuvant therapies) is the most favorable approach for ONJ lesions caused by oral bisphosphonates. For lesions caused by intravenous bisphosphonates, Protocol 2 (conservative treatment, clinical and radiological follow-up, minimally invasive surgical treatment, and no adjuvant therapies) is the best approach. When comparing the different stages of ONJ, Protocol 1 (conservative treatment, clinical and radiological follow-up) promotes better healing of Stage 1 ONJ lesions caused by orally administered bisphosphonates, and Protocol 3 is recommended for Stage II. For ONJ lesions attributable to intravenous bisphosphonates, Protocol 7 (conservative treatment, clinical and radiological follow-up, and adjuvant therapies) provides the best results in Stage 0; in Stages I, II, and III, Protocol 1 gives better results
