Osteonecrosis of the Jaw after Implant Surgery in Patients Treated with Bisphosphonates – A Presentation of Six Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteonecrosis of the jaws in patients treated with bisphosphonates is mostly associated with intravenous bisphosphonates while the incidence associated with oral bisphosphonates is not significant. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to describe a series of cases of jaw osteonecrosis that may be associated with dental implant placement in patients who had taken nitrogen containing bisphosphonates via oral and/or intravenous route. PATIENTS: Six female patients were treated for osteonecrosis of the jaw after implant placement. An average age was 71.8 ± 6.5 years old and they had a history of bisphosphonate use. Two patients suffered from cancer and the other patients had osteoporosis. Two osteoporosis patients had taken only oral bisphosphonate and the other patients received intravenous bisphosphonates. RESULTS: Resection of necrotized bone, implant removal, and primary closure were performed in five patients and four patients showed uneventful healing. One patient presented recurrence at the maxilla and underwent further extraction and resection. One patient presented with an exposure of the bone after implant placement was treated with an advanced flap closure, and the implants were preserved. CONCLUSION: Unusual jaw necrosis after dental implant surgery might be related with oral and/or intravenous bisphosphonates. Wide resection of necrotic bone, collagen graft, and primary closure are key factors for successful healing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".