The Topical Administration of Bisphosphonates in Implant Surgery: A Randomized Split‐Mouth Prospective Study with a Follow‐Up Up to 5 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the topical administration of bisphosphonates in implant therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients were selected for a split-mouth study. Inclusion criteria were: presence of a bilateral or total edentulism, ability to tolerate conventional implant procedures, older than 18 years. Ten patients were smokers. Ten patients were fully edentulous in both maxilla and mandible, 12 patients had fully edentulous maxilla or mandible, and 17 were bilaterally partially edentulous (9 in the mandible and 8 in the maxilla). A one-stage procedure was adopted in all cases. The prosthetic phase started 10 weeks after implant insertion. Each patient received implants on the control side and the test side, with insertion performed in the conventional way on the control side; on the test side, a 3% clodronate solution mixed with a surfactant (Tween-20) at a 1:3 ratio was topically administered both at the implant surface and at the implant site. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five implants were inserted. The test and control groups included 75 and 80 implants, respectively. The implant insertion torque was no less than 30 Ncm. A total of 7 implants failed in the control group (6 before loading and one after 12 months of loading). No failure occurred on the test side. By the 5-year follow-up, no further implant failure had been recorded. Overall, implant survival rates at 5 years for the test and control groups were, respectively, 100% and 91.3%, the difference being significant (p < .01). Mean marginal bone loss was 0.85 ± 0.71 mm in the test group and 1.12 ± 0.85 mm in the control group after 1 year of loading and stable thereafter. The difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The topical administration of bisphosphonates may positively affect implant survival in the preloading and postloading phases in partially and fully edentulous patients. However, a larger study population is needed to verify these promising clinical results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".