Implant Placement With or Without Simultaneous Tooth Extraction in Patients Taking Oral Bisphosphonates: Postoperative Healing, Early Follow‐Up, and the Incidence of Complications in Two Private Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis in patients with a history of intravenous bisphosphonate therapy is a significant cause of concern in clinical periodontal practice. The role of oral bisphosphonates in the development of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis is less clear. This article documents the results of treatment of patients with a history of oral bisphosphonate therapy in two private periodontal practices. The study was a retrospective analysis of case records of patients treated as part of routine periodontal and implant treatment. METHODS: Patients with a history of oral bisphosphonate therapy of various durations were treated with implant placement and restoration or tooth extraction, immediate placement, and restoration. These patients were followed for 12 to 24 months after implant placement. The incidence of hard and soft tissue complications, including the development of osteonecrosis, was noted. RESULTS: No osteonecrosis was noted immediately postoperatively or during the follow-up period in 61 patients. One patient demonstrated a small tissue dehiscence at the 1-week postoperative examination following extraction of a mandibular first molar and simultaneous implant placement in the area of a prominent torus. No other postoperative complications were noted. All implants were functioning successfully by the Albrektsson criteria 12 to 24 months post-insertion. CONCLUSIONS: A history of oral bisphosphonate use for a mean period of 3.3 years (range, 1 to 5 years) was not found to be a contributing factor to the development of osteonecrosis following implant placement in intact ridges or tooth extraction with immediate implant placement. However, there is no doubt that larger controlled studies and retrospective reports are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".