Evaluation of bisphosphonate treatment by a sensitive immuno radiometric assay, which ouantitate the stable N-mid region of hosteocalcin

Bone ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 612
Author(s):  
C. Herlino ◽  
C. Rosenquist ◽  
P. Qvist ◽  
C. Christiansen
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Bernhard ◽  
Petar Milovanovic ◽  
Michael Hahn ◽  
Danijela Djonic ◽  
Matthias Krause ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatma Gossiel ◽  
Kim Naylor ◽  
Eugene McCloskey ◽  
Nicola Peel ◽  
Jennifer Walsh ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aysehan Akinci ◽  
Ismail Dundar Dundar ◽  
Ahmet Sigirci

Author(s):  
Judd Sher ◽  
Kate Kirkham-Ali ◽  
Denny Luo ◽  
Catherine Miller ◽  
Dileep Sharma

The present systematic review evaluates the safety of placing dental implants in patients with a history of antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drug therapy. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases were used to search for clinical studies (English only) to July 16, 2019. Study quality was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case series. A broad search strategy resulted in the identification of 7542 studies. There were 28 studies reporting on bisphosphonates (5 cohort, 6 case control, and 17 case series) and one study reporting on denosumab (case series) that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The quality assessment revealed an overall moderate quality of evidence among the studies. Results demonstrated that patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis are not at increased risk of implant failure in terms of osseointegration. However, all patients with a history of bisphosphonate treatment, whether taken orally for osteoporosis or intravenously for malignancy, appear to be at risk of ‘implant surgery-triggered’ MRONJ. In contrast, the risk of MRONJ in patients treated with denosumab for osteoporosis was found to be negligible. In conclusion, general and specialist dentists should exercise caution when planning dental implant therapy in patients with a history of bisphosphonate and denosumab drug therapy. Importantly, all patients with a history of bisphosphonates are at risk of MRONJ, necessitating this to be included in the informed consent obtained prior to implant placement. The James Cook University College of Medicine and Dentistry Honours program and the Australian Dental Research Foundation Colin Cormie Grant were the primary sources of funding for this systematic review.


2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 406-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Alberto Ramaroli ◽  
Paolo Cavarzere ◽  
Maurizio Cheli ◽  
Massimo Provenzi ◽  
Marco Barillari ◽  
...  

We report a case of Gorham-Stout disease (GSD) complicated by chylothorax and treated with a combination therapy with interferon and bisphosphonates. This treatment may be helpful in improving the usually unfavorable prognosis of GSD beginning with a chylothorax before 1 year of age, and in reducing bone lesions. Moreover, the use of bisphosphonates appears to be useful in treating pain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 599-610
Author(s):  
Cuixia Tian ◽  
Brenda L. Wong ◽  
Lindsey Hornung ◽  
Jane C. Khoury ◽  
Irina Rybalsky ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Seung-Hun Lee ◽  
So-Young Choi ◽  
Min-Su Bae ◽  
Tae-Geon Kwon

Abstract Purpose This retrospective study was aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with osteonecrosis of the jaw who were receiving oral versus intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate (BP). Materials and methods This retrospective study enrolled subjects who had been diagnosed with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) during the period from July 2010 to June 2014. Information regarding the following demographic and clinical characteristics was collected: demographic data, administration route and type of BP, duration of BP medication, primary disease, number of involved sites, location of the lesion, number of surgeries, outcome of treatments, and laboratory test. All the patients were divided into oral and IV BP groups; and the between-group differences were compared. Results Total 278 patients were divided into two groups as per the route of BP administration. The proportion of oral BP-related MRONJ group were more dominant over IV BP group (oral BP, n = 251; IV BP, n = 27). In the IV BP group, the average dosing duration (31.4 months) was significantly shorter than that in the oral BP group (53.1 months) (P < 0.001). The average number of involved sites in the oral BP group (1.21 ± 0.48) was smaller than that in the IV BP group (1.63 ± 0.84) (P < 0.001). The average number of surgeries was higher in the IV BP group (1.65 ± 0.95) as compared to that in the oral BP group (0.98 ± 0.73) (P < 0.001). Outcome after the surgery for MRONJ after IV BP was poor than oral BP group. Conclusion IV administration of BP causes greater inhibition of bone remodeling and could lead more severe inflammation. Therefore, even if the duration of IV administration of BP is shorter than that of oral BP, the extent of the lesion could be more extensive. Therefore, the result suggests that the MRONJ after IV BP for cancer patients needs to be considered as different characteristics to oral BP group for osteoporosis patents.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document