Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis: laser-assisted surgical treatment or conventional surgery?
ABSTRACT Bisphosphonates (BSPs) are used for the treatment of multiple myeloma, metastatic breast and lung cancer, Paget's disease, osteoporosis, hypercalcemia due to malignancy, and many other skeletal diseases. BSPs reduce osteoclastic functions, which result in bone resorption. Bisphosphonates-related osteonecrosis of jaws (BRONJ) is a newly developed term that is used to describe the significant complication in patients receiving bisphosphonates. BSPs are known to exhibit an anti-angiogenetic effect that initiates tissue necrosis of the hard tissue. There is currently no consensus on the correct approach to this issue. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the effects of laser surgery with biostimulation to conventional surgery in the treatment of BSP-induced avascular bone necrosis on 20 patients who have been treated in our clinic. BRONJ was evaluated in patients with lung, prostate, and breast cancer under intravenous BSP treatment. Twenty patients in this study developed mandibular or maxillary avascular necrosis after a minor tooth extraction surgery or spontaneously. Bone turnover rates were evaluated by serum terminal C-telopeptide levels (CTX) using the electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technique and patients were treated with laser or conventional surgical treatments and medical therapy. Ten patients were treated with laser surgery and biostimulation. An Er:YAG laser (Fotona Fidelis Plus II® Combine laser equipment, Slovenia) very long pulse (VLP) mode (200 mJ, 20 Hz) using a fiber tip 1.3 mm in diameter and 12 mm in length was used to remove the necrotic and granulation tissues from the area of avascular necrosis. Biostimulation was applied postoperatively using an Nd:YAG laser. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was applied to the tissues for 1 min from 4 cm distance using an Nd:YAG laser (Fotona-Slovenia) with a R24 950-µm fiber handpiece long-pulse (LP) mode, 0.25-W, 10 Hz power/cm(2) from the mentioned distance the spot size was 0.4 cm(2), and power output was 2.5 J. Energy density from the mentioned distance was calculated to be 6.25 J/cm(2). The other ten patients were treated with conventional surgery. Treatment outcomes were noted as either complete healing or incomplete healing. There were no statistically significant differences between laser surgery and conventional surgery (p > 0.05). CTX values also did not affect the prognosis of the patients. Treatment outcomes were significantly better in patients with stage II osteonecrosis than in patients with stage I osteonecrosis. Our findings suggest that dental evaluation of the patients prior to medication is an important factor in the prevention of BRONJ. Laser surgery is a beneficial alternative in the treatment of patients with this situation. Further randomized studies with larger patient numbers may also improve our understanding of treatment protocols for this situation.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this controlled, parallel design clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Er:YAG (erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet) laser for nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis lesions. Twenty patients, each of whom displayed at least one implant with (a) moderate and (b) advanced periimplantitis (n=40 implants; IMZ, ITI, Spline Twist, ZL-Duraplant, Camlog), were randomly instrumented nonsurgically using either (1) an Er:YAG laser (100 mJ/pulse, 10 Hz) device (LAS) or (2) mechanical debridement using plastic curettes and antiseptic therapy with chlorhexidine digluconate (0.2%) (C). The following clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment: plaque index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth, gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Mean BOP improved significantly in both groups at 3, 6, and 12 months (a- lesions: P<0.001 and b- lesions: P<0.01, respectively). After 3 and 6 months, the mean reduction of BOP was significantly higher in the LAS group when compared to the C group (a- and b- lesions: P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively). At 3 and 6 months, both groups revealed significant CAL gains at a- and b- lesions (P<0.01, respectively). In both groups, however, the mean CAL at a- and b- lesions was not significantly different from the respective baseline values at 12 months (P>0.05, respectively). Although treatment of periimplantitis lesions with LAS resulted in a significantly higher BOP reduction than C, its effectiveness seemed to be limited to a period of 6 months, particularly at b- lesions.Clinical Oral Investigations 12/2006; 10(4):279-88. · 2.20 Impact Factor
- Periodontology 2000 02/2004; 36:59-97. · 4.01 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The primary aim was to address the following focused question: What is the clinical effect of laser application compared with mechanical debridement in non-surgical periodontal therapy in patients with chronic periodontitis? A secondary aim was to survey the relevant literature in relation to safety of laser applications. Electronic databases of the PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched and completed by manual searches up to December 2007. Following screening, 12 publications (11 studies) were eligible for the review. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies. The results from a narrative synthesis indicate that Er:YAG laser monotherapy resulted in similar clinical outcomes, both in the short and the long term (up to 24 months), compared with mechanical debridement. There is insufficient evidence to support the clinical application of either CO(2), Nd:YAG, Nd:YAP, or different diode laser wavelengths. The Er:YAG laser seems to possess characteristics most suitable for the non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontitis. Research conducted so far has indicated that its safety and effects might be expected to be within the range reported for conventional mechanical debridement. However, the evidence from the evaluated studies is weak.Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 10/2008; 35(8 Suppl):29-44. · 3.69 Impact Factor