Atormac
Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 67-70

Usability of surgical treatment in cases of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw stage 2 with sequestrum


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, 350-0495, Japan

Date of Web Publication20-Jul-2015

Correspondence Address:
Yosuke Fukushima
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saitama Medical University, 38 Morohongo, Moroyama, Iruma gun, Saitama 350 0495
Japan
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.161067

PMID: 26389037

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objective: This retrospective study was conducted to reveal usability of surgical treatment in the cases of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) stage 2 with sequestrum. Patients and Methods: Study subjects included 18 patients having BRONJ stage 2 with sequestrum and 12 non-BRONJ patients with nearly equal clinical states of BRONJ stage 2. Patient characteristics, frequency of inciting factors of osteonecrosis, and treatment results were compared between BRONJ group and non-BRONJ groups. In addition, correlation between treatment methods (conservative therapy, sequestrum curettage, and sequestrectomy) and treatment results and correlation between the administration route of bisphosphonates (BPs) (oral or intravenous) and treatment results were examined statistically. The Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test were performed for statistical analysis. Results: Patient characteristics, frequency of inciting factors of osteonecrosis, and treatment results showed no significant differences between the two groups. In the BRONJ group, treatment result of sequestrectomy was significantly better than conservative therapy/sequestrum curettage (P < 0.001), however, no significant difference was observed in the non-BRONJ group. No significant difference was found in correlation between the administration route of BPs and treatment results in the BRONJ group. Conclusion: Treatment outcome of sequestrectomy was better than conservative therapy/sequestrum curettage in BRONJ stage 2 cases with sequestrum.

Keywords: Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, sequestrectomy, sequestrum


How to cite this article:
Fukushima Y, Enoki Y, Nakaoka C, Okubo M, Kokabu S, Nojima J, Sato T, Yoda T. Usability of surgical treatment in cases of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw stage 2 with sequestrum. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2015;5:67-70

How to cite this URL:
Fukushima Y, Enoki Y, Nakaoka C, Okubo M, Kokabu S, Nojima J, Sato T, Yoda T. Usability of surgical treatment in cases of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw stage 2 with sequestrum. Ann Maxillofac Surg [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 14];5:67-70. Available from: http://www.amsjournal.com/text.asp?2015/5/1/67/161067


  Introduction Top


There has been considerable discussion regarding treatment methods for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (BRONJ) stage 2 cases. Regardless of disease stage, mobile segments of bony sequestrum should be removed without exposing uninvolved bone. Therefore, conservative therapy has been recommended by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). [1] However, little attention has been paid to the comparison of BRONJ with other osteonecrosis of the jaw that clinically-approximate to BRONJ. Therefore, usability of surgical treatment in BRONJ cases may not have been evaluated correctly. It is necessary that comparing treatment results between BRONJ stage 2 cases with sequestrum and non-BRONJ cases with sequestrum to confirm the usability of surgical treatment in BRONJ stage 2 cases. This study focuses on comparison of surgical treatment results between cases of BRONJ and cases of non-BRONJ.


  Patients and Methods Top


Study subjects were 30 patients who visited Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saitama Medical University, from January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2013. In this study, we classified patients diagnosed with BRONJ stage 2 using The AAOMS [1] as the BRONJ group. In this study, kinds of bisphosphonates (BPs) and administration period of BPs were not examined. Cases have nearly equal clinical states of BRONJ stage 2, without BP treatment, were classified as the non-BRONJ group. In addition, computed tomography was used to evaluate separation degree of sequestrum in all 30 cases. The BRONJ group included 18 cases (7 men and 11 women; mean age, 66.4 ± 11.9 years). The non-BRONJ group included 12 cases (7 men and 5 women; mean, 67.4 ± 12.7 years). In this group, 2 cases each had rheumatoid arthritis or multiple myeloma, 1 case was radio-osteonecrosis, and other 7 cases had no appreciable disease.

Regarding the inciting factors of osteonecrosis, ten cases in the BRONJ group were caused by tooth extraction, 8 cases were caused by other conditions (5 marginal periodontitis, 2 apical periodontitis, and 1 denture stomatitis). Seven cases in the non-BRONJ group were caused by tooth extraction, 5 cases were caused by other conditions (2 marginal periodontitis, 2 apical periodontitis, and 1 pericoronitis). Regarding the treatment method, conservative therapy (n = 3), sequestrum curettage (n = 6), and sequestrectomy (n = 9) were performed in the BRONJ group. Conservative therapy (n = 4), sequestrum curettage (n = 7), and sequestrectomy (n = 1) were performed in the non-BRONJ group. In this study, a treatment method which abrades the surface layer of inseparate sequestrum was defined as sequestrum curettage [Figure 1]. And a treatment method which removes separated sequestrum from normal bone with entire closed wound was defined as sequestrectomy [Figure 2]. In this study, all the cases with sequestrectomy were osteonecrosis cases had separated sequestrum in computed tomography.
Figure 1: Sequestrum curettage (a) Nonbisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw case with inseparate sequestrum (b) Curettage with cutting instrument

Click here to view
Figure 2: Sequestrectomy (a) Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw case with free sequestrum (b) Removed sequestrum

Click here to view


Regarding treatment results, 11 cases in the BRONJ group were healed, 7 cases were not. 5 cases in the non-BRONJ group were healed, 7 cases were not. Healing status was considered to be successful when there was complete mucosal coverage without any exposed bone and any sign of infection. The patients were followed up for 3 months at our department after final healing was obtained.

In the BRONJ group, the route of administration of BPs was oral in 7 cases and intravenous in 11 cases [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1: Patient backgrounds of BRONJ group

Click here to view
Table 2: Patient backgrounds of Non - BRONJ group

Click here to view


In this study, we distinguished between cases receiving either conservative therapy or sequestrum curettage and cases receiving sequestrectomy. We statistically analyzed the average age, sex distribution, inciting factors of osteonecrosis, and postoperative results to reveal differences of patient background between the BRONJ and non-BRONJ groups. We divided the inciting factors of osteonecrosis into tooth extraction and not involving tooth extraction based on medical records. We divided treatment results into healing and nonhealing. In addition, the correlation between treatment methods and treatment results and that between the administration route of BPs (oral or intravenous) and treatment results were examined statistically for each group. The Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test (Ekuseru-Toukei 2010 for Windows) were used for statistical analysis. P < 1% were considered to indicate significant differences.


  Results Top


In Average age (P = 0.66), sex distribution (P = 0.25), frequency of inciting factors of osteonecrosis (P = 0.59), and treatment results (P = 0.25), no significant difference was noted between the two groups. In the BRONJ group, 7 out of 9 cases receiving conservative treatment or sequestrum curettage did not heal while 9 out of 9 cases receiving sequestrectomy healed. In contrast, in the non-BRONJ group, 1 out of 5 cases receiving conservative treatment or sequestrum curettage did not heal, whereas 4 out of 7 cases receiving sequestrectomy healed. In the BRONJ group, treatment result of sequestrectomy was significantly better than conservative therapy/sequestrum curettage (P = 0.001), however, no significant difference was observed in the non-BRONJ group (P = 0.25). In the BRONJ group, no significant difference was observed in the correlation between the route of administration of BPs and treatment results (P = 0.42).


  Discussion Top


BRONJ has been diagnosed as defined by the AAOMS: "Exposed bone in the maxillofacial region over a period of 8 weeks, current or previous treatment with BP, and no history of radiation therapy to the jaws. [2]" Although BRONJ has been classified as other osteomyelitis of the jaw, interrogation remains whether BRONJ is different from other osteonecrosis of the jaw in clinical aspects. Therefore, to clear the clinical differences between BRONJ and other osteomyelitis, we thought it is necessary to compare treatment methods and treatment results of these osteonecrosis of the jaws. The most commonly reported inciting factor for the initiation of BRONJ is tooth extraction. [3],[4],[5],[6] Odontogenic infection, dental implant surgery, denture stomatitis local, or spontaneous occurrences have been known as inciting factors. [1],[7] In this study, 10 cases (55.6%) were caused by tooth extraction, which is in agreement with some reports. [8],[9] However, in the BRONJ group, similar to non-BRONJ group, no significant difference was found between surgical procedure and nonsurgical procedures in inciting factors. In view of these results, to prevent BRONJ onset, it is necessary to pay attention to periodontitis, dentures ulcers, as well as for surgical procedures like tooth extraction.

The clinical management of BRONJ remains controversial. In BRONJ group, healing rate was more than 60% while the rate of non-BRONJ group was <50%. However, in comparison of both groups, no significant difference was showed, it seems right to presume that osteomyelitis of the jaw including BRONJ is an intractable disease.

In the initial reports and some studies of BRONJ, the results were observed that surgical therapy could not provide complete healing to BRONJ treatment. [10],[11],[12],[13] Therefore, the assumption that patients should undergo palliative therapies rather than pursue complete healing with more aggressive interventions was led. According to these results, the treatment guidelines of AAOMS recommend conservative therapy for cases of BRONJ stage 2. However, acute inflammation and recurrence of symptoms occur in some cases following conservative therapy or a palliative procedure like sequestrum curettage. Therefore, some reports indicate that surgical treatment like sequestrectomy is a useful method for these cases. [14],[15] To confirm whether surgical therapy should be avoided for patients with BRONJ stage 2, we thought the comparison between BRONJ stage 2 cases involved sequestrum, and clinically-approximated osteomyelitis of the jaw cases was needed. In this study, we indicate that surgical therapy gave much better results than conservative therapy or sequestrum curettage for the BRONJ group. It seems right to presume that sequestrectomy is a radical treatment for cases of BRONJ stage 2 with sequestrum. Kobe et al. [16] reported that four of seven cases of BRONJ stage 2 showed healing with sequestrectomy, whereas only one of nine cases showed healing following conservative therapy. Abu-Id et al. [17] also observed that surgical therapy was the only treatment method for not only symptom improvement but also complete recovery. Critical surgical treatment taking lesion off clearly has been effective for the cases with separated sequestrum from peripheral bone obviously. [18],[19] Free sequestrum should be removed without exposing normal bone. [20] In contrast, it is difficult to remove the direct factors of non-BRONJ cases such as radio-osteonecrosis or cryptogenic osteomyelitis. Therefore, some radical surgical therapies have been used for these cases. Though, radical debridement, removing inseparate sequestrum and marginal normal bone en bloc, is disadvantageous as the excision range may become slightly large. As a general rule, normal bone should be scraped to the point of bleeding when removing inseparate sequestrum following curettage surrounding bone under the sequestrum, such as saucerization with sequestrectomy. However, it is difficult to define bleeding as a mark to set the excision range in many cases of BRONJ, as the entire jaw becomes ischemic due to BPs. Thus, taking this into account, it is seems natural to conclude that some cases of BRONJ stage 2 with separation of sequestrum that occurred due to discontinuation of BPs could be operated on with sequestrectomy, and other cases without separation of sequestrum involving progression of osteonecrosis of the jaws could be operated on with radical debridement or saucerization with sequestrectomy.

In patients with cancer, intravenous BPs have higher binding affinity and potency, probably resulting in greater remodeling suppression compared with oral BPs. For absorption from the gastrointestinal tract, in oral BPs, its absorption rate is <1% of the administered dose. However, in intravenous BPs, more than 50% of the dose is taken into bone tissue. [21] Therefore, other studies indicating that the prevalence of BRONJ is much lower in patients on oral BPs than in patients treated with intravenous BPs. [22] However, in treatment results, comparison between oral and intravenous BPs showed no significant differences. Because of the potential for the deficiency of the number of the cases, we are planning to carry out the study by amassing more cases.

It is not to say that if surgical therapy leads any BRONJ stage 2 cases to successful treatment outcome. This study was not conducted under substantially similar conditions in the separation of sequestrum and taking situation of BPs. However, it is evident from the present study that as far as BRONJ stage 2 cases with sequestrum is concerned, discontinuation of BPs can develop separation of sequestrum, and sequestrectomy could result in successful treatment. The most important finding in this study is that BRONJ, as well as other osteomyelitis, is a disease that would be cured with appropriate treatment method. It is hoped that the findings that have been presented in this paper will contribute to a better selecting mark of surgical treatment in BRONJ stage 2 cases.


  Conclusion Top


Treatment outcome of sequestrectomy was better than conservative therapy or sequestrum curettage in BRONJ stage 2 cases with sequestrum.


  Acknowledgement Top


Source of funding

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflict of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Ruggiero SL, Dodson TB, Fantasia J, Goodday R, Aghaloo T, Mehrotra B, et al. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons position paper on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw-2014 update. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;72:1938-56.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Saylor PJ, Smith MR. Bone health and prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010;13:20-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Mavrokokki T, Cheng A, Stein B, Goss A. Nature and frequency of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws in Australia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:415-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Vahtsevanos K, Kyrgidis A, Verrou E, Katodritou E, Triaridis S, Andreadis CG, et al. Longitudinal cohort study of risk factors in cancer patients of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5356-62.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Fehm T, Beck V, Banys M, Lipp HP, Hairass M, Reinert S, et al. Bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ): Incidence and risk factors in patients with breast cancer and gynecological malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112:605-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Saad F, Brown JE, Van Poznak C, Ibrahim T, Stemmer SM, Stopeck AT, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of osteonecrosis of the jaw: Integrated analysis from three blinded active-controlled phase III trials in cancer patients with bone metastases. Ann Oncol 2012;23:1341-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Otto S, Schreyer C, Hafner S, Mast G, Ehrenfeld M, Stürzenbaum S, et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws - Characteristics, risk factors, clinical features, localization and impact on oncological treatment. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012;40:303-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Sedghizadeh PP, Stanley K, Caligiuri M, Hofkes S, Lowry B, Shuler CF. Oral bisphosphonate use and the prevalence of osteonecrosis of the jaw: An institutional inquiry. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:61-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Boonyapakorn T, Schirmer I, Reichart PA, Sturm I, Massenkeil G. Bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaws: Prospective study of 80 patients with multiple myeloma and other malignancies. Oral Oncol 2008;44:857-69.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Marx RE, Sawatari Y, Fortin M, Broumand V. Bisphosphonate-induced exposed bone (osteonecrosis/osteopetrosis) of the jaws: Risk factors, recognition, prevention, and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:1567-75.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Scoletta M, Arduino PG, Dalmasso P, Broccoletti R, Mozzati M. Treatment outcomes in patients with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: A prospective study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:46-53.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ruggiero SL, Mehrotra B, Rosenberg TJ, Engroff SL. Osteonecrosis of the jaws associated with the use of bisphosphonates: A review of 63 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:527-34.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Magopoulos C, Karakinaris G, Telioudis Z, Vahtsevanos K, Dimitrakopoulos I, Antoniadis K, et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaws due to bisphosphonate use. A review of 60 cases and treatment proposals. Am J Otolaryngol 2007;28:158-63.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Urade M, Tanaka N, Shimada J, Shibata T, Furusawa K, Kirita T, et al. A follow-up survey of 30 cases of bisphosphonate-related ostemyelitis/osteonecrosis of the jaws: Present status after 2 years. Jpn J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;55:553-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Fukushima Y, Takagi K, Asanoumi T, Enoki Y, Nakamoto N, Sato T, et al. A case of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw used with PGA felt and fibrin adhesives in sequestrectomy. J Jpn Soc Dent Medically Compromised Patient 2010;19:155-61.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kobe T, Takayama Y, Gomi A, Negishi A, Yokoo S. A clinnical study of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis/osteomyelitis of the jaws (BRONJ) at Gunma university hospital. J Jpn Soc Dent Medically Compromised Patient 2013;22:37-47.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Abu-Id MH, Warnke PH, Gottschalk J, Springer I, Wiltfang J, Acil Y, et al. "Bis-phossy jaws"- High and low risk factors for bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008;36:95-103.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Engroff SL, Kim DD. Treating bisphosphonate osteonecrosis of the jaws: Is there a role for resection and vascularized reconstruction? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:2374-85.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Hariya Y, Sekiguchi T, Okita M, Harada M, Ohuchi T. Surgical intervention of osteonecrosis of the maxilla associated with bisphosphonate therapy: Report of a case. Jpn J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;54:413-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Kademani D, Koka S, Lacy MQ, Rajkumar SV. Primary surgical therapy for osteonecrosis of the jaw secondary to bisphosphonate therapy. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1100-3.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ezra A, Golomb G. Administration routes and delivery systems of bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone resorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2000;42:175-95.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Mücke T, Koschinski J, Deppe H, Wagenpfeil S, Pautke C, Mitchell DA, et al. Outcome of treatment and parameters influencing recurrence in patients with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2011;137:907-13.  Back to cited text no. 22
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Stage-specific therapeutic strategies of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the drug suspension protocol
Luca Ramaglia,Agostino Guida,Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano,Alessandro Cuozzo,Andrea Blasi,Anton Sculean
Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw - a current review
F. Domah,N. Shah,J. Domah,R. Shah
Oral Surgery. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Patients and Methods
  Results
  Discussion
  Conclusion
  Acknowledgement
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1454    
    Printed44    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded204    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal