Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Materials and antiresorptive drug-associated outcomes in implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 3 was to address the influence of both material- and anti-resorptive drug- related factors on clinical and biological outcomes and complications in implant dentistry. Focused questions were addressed on (a) implant materials other than titanium (alloy)s, (b) transmucosal abutment materials and (c) medications affecting bone metabolism were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion in Group 3. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations were formulated by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. Patient perspectives and recommendations for future research were also conveyed. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS: Zirconia is a valid alternative to titanium as material for implant and transmucosal components, allowing soft and hard tissue integration with clinical outcomes-identified by implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri-implant probing depths-up to 5-years comparable to titatnium. However, most of the evidence for zirconia implants is based on 1-piece implants limiting the indication range. Furthermore, based on expert opinion, zirconia transmucosal components might be preferred in the esthetic zone. In patients receiving low-dose bisphosphonate therapy, the rate of early implant failure is not increased, while the long-term effects remain poorly studied. Although it has not been sufficiently addressed, similar outcomes can be expected with low-dose denosumab. A drug holiday is not recommended when considering implant placement in patients treated with low-dose ARD. However, the specific therapeutic window, the cumulative dose and the administration time should be considered. Access to peri-implant supportive care is mandatory to prevent peri-implantitis-related medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) or implant-related sequestra (IRS). In patients receiving low-dose anti-resorptive drugs (ARD) therapy, the risk of complications related to implant placement is high, and implant procedures in this specific population should be strictly treated in a comprehensive multidisciplinary center. Finally, healthy dental implants should not be removed before low or high-dose ARD. CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia implants can be an alternative to titanium implants in selected indications. However, the current state of evidence remains limited, especially for 2-piece implant designs. Administration of low-dose ARD did not show any negative impact on early implant outcomes, but careful follow-up and supportive care is recommended in order to prevent peri-implant MRONJ and IRS. Implant placement in high-dose patients must be strictly considered in a comprehensive multidisciplinary center.

Outcome of healing after dental implant placement in patients with cancer on high-dose antiresorptive medications: a prospective feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Implant placement in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive medication (HDAR) is considered contraindicated. This prospective, feasibility study tested the hypothesis that dental implants can be placed in such patients by applying a staged implant placement protocol with submerged healing. METHODS: Three groups of patients on HDAR were included as follows: group 1: patients who underwent tooth extraction, without the development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ); group 2: patients with surgically treated MRONJ who had demonstrated clinical healing for at least 3 months; group 3: patients with established MRONJ who was planned for surgical resection and simultaneous implant placement. RESULTS: A total of 49 implants were placed in 27 patients (group 1: 12, group 2: 7 and group 3: 8). HDAR included bisphosphonates and denosumab. The mean HDAR time was 25 months (SD: ± 18.4, range 3-68 months). An abutment operation was performed 4 months following the implant placement (SD: ± 1.9, range 3-14 months). All patients healed uneventfully. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that it is feasible to insert dental implants and perform an abutment surgery in patients with cancer on HDAR, without the development of MRONJ. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04741906.