Gelazius Rokas, Poskevicius Lukas, Sakavicius Dalius, Grimuta Vaidas, Juodzbalys Gintaras
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, KaunasLithuania.
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2018 Sep 30;9(3):e2. doi: 10.5037/jomr.2018.9302. eCollection 2018 Jul-Sep.
The review aims to study dental implant placement purposefulness for patients who have been treated or are on treatment with bisphosphonate medication.
Structured search strategy was applied on electronic databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central and ResearchGate. Scientific publications in English between 2006 and 2017 were identified in accordance with inclusion, exclusion criteria. Publication screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Outcome measures included implant failure or implant-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.
In total, 32 literature sources were reviewed, and 9 of the most relevant articles that are suitable to the criteria were selected. Heterogeneity between the studies was found and no meta-analysis could be done. Five studies analysed intraoral bisphosphonate medication in relation with implant placement, three studies investigated intravenous bisphosphonate medication in relation with implant placement and one study evaluated both types of medication given in relation with implant placement. Patients with intraoral therapy appeared to have a better implant survival (5 implants failed out of 423) rate at 98.8% vs. patients treated intravenously (6 implants failed out of 68) at 91%; the control group compared with intraoral bisphosphonate group appeared with 97% success implant survival rate (27 implants failed out of 842), showing no significant difference in terms of success in implant placement.
Patients treated with intravenous bisphosphonates seemed to have a higher chance of developing implant-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. The intraorally treated patient group appeared to have more successful results. Implant placement in patients treated intraorally could be considered safe with precautions.
本综述旨在研究接受双膦酸盐药物治疗或正在接受该药物治疗的患者种植牙植入的目的性。
对电子数据库MEDLINE、PubMed、PubMed Central和ResearchGate应用结构化检索策略。根据纳入和排除标准，识别2006年至2017年间的英文科学出版物。进行文献筛选、数据提取和质量评估。结局指标包括种植体失败或种植体相关的颌骨坏死。
共检索了32篇文献来源，选择了9篇最符合标准的相关文章。发现研究之间存在异质性，无法进行荟萃分析。五项研究分析了口服双膦酸盐药物与种植体植入的关系，三项研究调查了静脉注射双膦酸盐药物与种植体植入的关系，一项研究评估了两种药物与种植体植入的关系。接受口服治疗的患者种植体存活率更高（423颗种植体中有5颗失败），为98.8%，而接受静脉注射治疗的患者（68颗种植体中有6颗失败）为91%；与口服双膦酸盐组相比，对照组种植体成功率为97%（842颗种植体中有27颗失败），在种植体植入成功率方面无显著差异。
接受静脉注射双膦酸盐治疗的患者似乎发生种植体相关颌骨坏死的几率更高。口服治疗的患者组似乎有更成功的结果。在采取预防措施的情况下，口服治疗患者的种植体植入可被认为是安全 的。
