Association between periodontitis and medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensus has yet to be reached about the prevention and treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), which is a treatment sequela of several antiresorptive therapies and other pharmaceutical interventions. Several epidemiologic studies have identified periodontal disease (PD) as a risk factor for this outcome. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate this association and its magnitude. A systematic search in MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science, and a meta-analysis were undertaken. Observational studies that gathered information regarding prefixed definitions for both outcomes were selected, and the relevant information was then extracted, and their risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The protocol of the study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019125646). The initial search yielded 757 eligible records, of which 12 were deemed adequate for inclusion (5 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies). On a random-effects meta-analysis, the risk of PD in MRONJ-affected sites compared with at-risk non-affected patients was significantly greater, with a risk ratio of 2.75 (95% CI: 1.67-4.52). Nonetheless, from a pooled analysis of three standardized periodontal measures (ie plaque index, clinical attachment loss and probing depth) no significant results were obtained. MRONJ appears to be associated with an increase in prevalence of PD. The direction of this association, and the factors influencing it must be investigated using further prospective data, and likewise, the possibility for using periodontal therapy as a prevention strategy must be looked into. Periodontal screening needs to be made an indispensable requisite for clinicians in order to establish a correct multidisciplinary approach in MRONJ.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".