Next Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Optimal Allocation of River Basin Water Resources under Full Probability Scenarios Considering Wet–Dry Encounters: A Case Study of Yellow River Basin
Next Article in Special Issue
Orthodontic Forced Eruption of Permanent Anterior Teeth with Subgingival Fractures: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Biodiversity and Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Margalefidinium Species in Jiaozhou Bay, China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Preventive Tooth Extractions on Quality of Life in Patients with Antiresorptive Intake—A Prospective Longitudinal Study

1
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2
Department of Biometry, Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
3
Department of Orthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(21), 11650; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111650
Submission received: 8 October 2021 / Revised: 31 October 2021 / Accepted: 3 November 2021 / Published: 6 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Health — Prevention, Diagnostics, Therapy and Quality of Life)

Abstract

:
Background: To find out whether preventive tooth extractions in patients on antiresorptive therapy have a direct impact on the patients’ overall quality of life (QoL); Methods: QoL using the five-level version of the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was longitudinally assessed in N = 114 prospectively enrolled patients with indication of preventive tooth extraction over a period of 12 months. Patients were stratified as high-risk (malignant disease with bone metastasis or multiple myeloma, with monthly high-dose antiresorptive therapy delivered intravenously [bisphosphonate] or subcutaneously [denosumab]) and low-risk/osteoporosis patients (weekly low-dose antiresorptive therapy administered orally [bisphosphonate] or half-yearly subcutaneously [denosumab]). The measurement time points were 4 weeks preoperatively (T0), 2 months (T1) and 1 year postoperatively (T2), respectively. Results: EQ-5D-5L index scores fell in a range from −0.21 to 1.00 in the low-risk group to 0.15 to 1.00 in the high-risk group. The t-test comparing the baseline index scores of both groups showed EQ-5D-5L index score in the low-risk group (0.708 ± 0.292) to be significantly smaller (p = 0.037) than in the high-risk group (0.807 ± 0.19). ANCOVA showed no significant differences in EQ-5D-5L index scores between the groups at T1 and T2. Conclusions: Preventive tooth extractions in patients undergoing antiresorptive treatment have no negative effect on QoL. Therefore, if indicated, preventive tooth extraction should not be omitted. Patient-oriented outcome measures are important to obtain a good risk–benefit balance for patient-specific treatment.

1. Introduction

Antiresorptive agents, in particular bisphosphonates and denosumab, are essential components of pharmacological therapy for avoiding skeletal complications in osteoporosis and malignant primary disease. These agents have beneficial effects on health-related quality of life (QoL) [1]. In essence, antiresorptive agents are very well tolerated and their use is considered to have few adverse reactions. However, in past years, the medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) has been shown to be a significant side effect of antiresorptives [2,3,4]. MRONJ can lead to a complication-laden course with the loss of dental and oral function, with possible large-volume loss of jaw sections and thereby a reduction in QoL [5,6]. Furthermore, despite the lack of evidence, the diagnosis of MRONJ and sometimes even the suspicion of diagnosis leads to an interruption of antiresorptive and oncologic therapy. This again may have an impact on the underlying disease [7] and indirectly on the QoL.
Therefore, it is of utmost importance to prevent the development of MRONJ. The pathogenesis of MRONJ has not been definitively elucidated at this time. However, current data indicate that a variety of cellular and molecular mechanisms are involved in the development of MRONJ, and the reduced vascularization observed in BPs-treated patients has been suggested as the key player for the necrosis of the jaw [8]. However, infection-associated lesions often precede the development of necrosis of the jaw. Consequently, events occurring during the establishment of the infection result as the trigger for the exacerbation of MRONJ. For a long time, it was believed that tooth extractions were the main trigger for MRONJ. As a consequence, many guidelines still recommend avoiding tooth extractions under antiresorptive therapy [9,10,11]. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the triggering factor is not the tooth extraction itself, but the local infection leading to or following tooth extractions [12,13]. Data in recent years clearly show that tooth extractions under antiresorptive therapy can be performed safely if certain rules are followed [14,15]. Furthermore, there are a plethora of studies that suggest high rates of necrotic changes to the alveolar bone structure at the time of tooth extraction. With this knowledge one must assume that excessive delay to extracting an inflammatory tooth increases the risk of MRONJ development more than the extraction itself if the well-established preventive measures are met [16]. Therefore, international guidelines have adapted their recommendations [3,17,18,19]. However, to date, there are no data which evaluate the impact of preventive tooth extractions on patients’ QoL. Especially but not exclusively in oncological patients with a palliative overall prognosis, QoL is an important patient-oriented influencing factor [20]. Therefore, it is also important to include the QoL aspect in the weighing of risks and the treatment decision of a preventive tooth extraction.
The aim of this study was to find out to what extent patients’ general QoL is affected by preventive tooth extraction in osteoporosis and tumor patients and whether there were differences between high (tumor) and low risk (osteoporosis) patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

As an extension analysis of the PRISM trial (Preventive Strategies in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw), this study focuses on the secondary outcome QoL. PRISM is a prospective, parallel-group, open-label, randomized clinical pilot trial which compares different wound closure techniques, specifically the sub-periosteal prepared muco-periosteal flap and the epi-periosteal prepared mucosa flap as well as the feasibility of alveoplasty after surgical tooth extractions in patients undergoing and after antiresorptive treatment [14]. The investigation was carried out at the Department of Cranio-, Oral-, and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Heidelberg. The study protocol was approved by the designated Research Ethics Board (Ethics number S-088/2016), registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00010106), and conducted with the understanding and written consent of each patient in full accordance with ethical principles and the Declaration of Helsinki in its current version.

2.2. Patients

All patients who underwent therapeutic antiresorptive therapy with bisphosphonates or denosumab and who have been assigned to our department for teeth removal under preventive conditions were consecutively recruited and checked for eligibility in our specialized consultation hour over a period of 24 months between 2016 and 2018. The inclusion criteria for the PRISM trial were as follows: (a) indication of need for tooth removal; (b) ongoing antiresorptive treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab; (c) no signs of exposed bone to the oral cavity, and therefore no signs of MRONJ [9]. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) history of head and neck radiation, (b) metastatic bone disease of the maxillofacial region; (c) patients younger than 18; and (d) incomplete data sets.
For our secondary extension analysis, we chose only patients whose treatment was performed under drug holiday (antiresorptive treatment was paused 4 weeks before surgery and continued 4 weeks after surgery) and follow up of 1 year after surgery was completed. Furthermore, we stratified patients either as tumor patients (high risk patients; malignant disease with bone metastasis or multiple myeloma, with monthly high-dose antiresorptive therapy delivered intravenously [bisphosphonate] or subcutaneously [denosumab]) or as osteoporosis patients (low risk patients, weekly low-dose antiresorptive therapy administered orally [bisphosphonate] or half-yearly subcutaneously [denosumab]).

2.3. Data Collection

To minimize performance bias, all dental extractions were performed under local anesthesia by the same surgeons who were experienced in preventive tooth extractions during/after antiresorptive treatment. Prior to initiation, all involved surgeons were trained in the techniques. All surgeons followed the surgical protocol as published previously [14], in adherence to a standardized intra-institutional protocol following the German guidelines for MRONJ [18]. After the operation, further follow-up care was provided in our weekly consultation hours.
Four weeks preoperatively (T0), 2 months (T1) and 1 year postoperatively (T2) all patients filled out the five-level version of the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D-5L). This questionnaire is used to assess health-related quality of life. It measures patients’ health status in five dimensions (mobility, self-care, capacity to undertake usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression) which each have five levels of severity (no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and either extreme problems or unable to perform activity) [21]. Patients described their health status by selecting one statement in each dimension, ranging from 1 (no problem) to 5 (extremely problematic). The EQ-5D-5L further offers the opportunity to calculate an overall score, the so-called single index utility score, from the five answers of a patient. To convert an individual EQ-5D-5L health state to single index utility score a value set is required. The value sets are based on the results of valuation studies for different countries/regions. A value set is essentially a set of weights for each of the levels in the five EQ-5D dimensions. A large weight means that people in that country/region believe that a particular level of severity has a large impact on health-related quality of life. In this trial, responses to EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were converted into a single index utility score using the German value set [22], resulting in values from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (death). The EQ-5D-5L included the EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) which respondents used to rate their overall health. The top and bottom endpoints are “the worst health you can imagine” (0) and “the best health you can imagine” (100).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All the statistical computations were carried out using the statistical software R version 4.0.2. Because of the preliminary “proof-of-concept” character of the PRISM trial, no formal sample size calculation was performed. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient demographics and clinical details. Continuous variables were reported in terms of mean values and categorical variables as numbers and percentages. The sample data were described by frequencies (%) or mean for EQ-5D score. Variability around mean values was measured by standard deviations (SD). The presentation of the EQ-5D-5L results followed the recommendations of the EuroQol Group [21]. To compare quality of life as presented by EQ-5D-5L index score and EQ-VAS and between high and low-risk groups, an ANCOVA model that uses the respective post-intervention value as outcome was computed, together with the baseline-value and the treatment group, as recommended by the current literature. The baseline-values were compared using a standard t-test. Only patients with complete data on all measured variables were included.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

160 patients participated in the PRISM trial, while 132 completed the 1-year follow-up. Out of these 132 patients, 114 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included (85 females and 29 male patients). The data sets of all patients were complete. 54 were stratified as osteoporosis/low risk patients and 60 as tumor patients/high risk patients. Patients’ underlying diseases/cancer types and antiresorptive treatment prior to extraction are shown in Table 1. None of the patients included developed MRONJ or any skeletal-related event until T2.

3.2. Five-Level Version of the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D Instrument (EQ-5D-5L)

Please refer to Table 2 and Table 3 for patients’ responses. EQ-5D-5L index scores fell in the range from −0.21 to 1.00 in the low-risk group to 0.15 to 1.00 in the high-risk group. The t-test which compared the baseline index scores of both groups shows that EQ-5D-5L index score in the low-risk group (0.708 ± 0.292) is significantly smaller (p = 0.037) than in the high-risk group (0.807 ± 0.19). This means that health-related QoL at the baseline of patients in the osteoporosis group was significantly worse than that in the tumor group. ANCOVA showed no significant differences in EQ-5D-5L index scores between the groups at T1 and T2 (Table 4).
EQ-VAS fell in the range from 5 to 100 in the low-risk group and 10 to 1000 in the high-risk group. The t-test comparing the EQ-VAS values of both groups shows no significant (p = 0.146) differences between the low-risk (61.76 ± 25.29) and high-risk groups (68.00 ± 19.49). Also, ANCOVA showed no significant differences in EQ-5D-5L index scores between the groups at T1 and T2 (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Many authors and professional societies are still of the opinion that tooth removal is the main trigger for necrosis [9,10,11]. According to this view, MRONJ following dental extraction could seriously impair patients’ quality of life and delay oncological therapy [23]. In a number of studies, however, it has been shown that tooth extractions carried out under appropriate preventive provisos (antibiotic therapy, atraumatic surgery, alveoplasty, and primary wound closure) only rarely result in MRONJ [14,15]. Nonetheless, it still cannot be assumed that the prevention of MRONJ leads to a positive influence on the quality of life. In addition, there are no data to date concerning the impact of preventive tooth extraction on QoL itself. However, this patient-oriented outcome measure is important to obtain a good risk–benefit balance for patient-specific treatment planning.
To the best of our knowledge this study is the first to evaluate the influence of preventive tooth extraction on patients’ QoL. The results of this study show that there is no significant change of QoL between the baseline score and after surgery, either for the osteoporosis (EQ-5D-5L index scores T0 0.71 ± 0.29; T1 0.77 ± 0.26) or the tumor group (T0 0.81 ± 0.19; T1 0.80 ± 0.23). The same applies for the scores 12 months after surgery.
Overall, data on QoL in MRONJ patients are lacking. A recent systematic review on this topic identified only eight studies that investigated quality of life of patients suffering from MRONJ [23]. Five of the studies looked at oral health-related QoL (using the questionnaires: OHIP 14, QLQ-HN35) [24,25,26,27,28] while seven looked at general health-related QoL (using the questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30, SF 12, UWQoL, EQ-5D) [20,24,25,27,28,29,30]. The studies examined the effects of MRONJ alone as well as that of different therapy methods on patients’ QoL. It was shown that patients suffering from MRONJ generally have a poor quality of life and several oral complaints, including pain and speech problems [23]. A higher stage of disease seemed to result in worse QoL [24]. However, it should be noted that the underlying disease makes it difficult to interpret these results accurately. In fact, it is difficult to distinguish whether the reduction in quality of life is caused by the underlying disease or a MRONJ [23]. When comparing initial QoL between patients with osteoporosis or cancer, Oteri et al. found that differences exist. Therefore, it is recommended to measure oral QoL, as it focuses on the disease process and reduces interference from other comorbidities [27].
In this study, we deliberately chose not to assess oral QoL but QoL as a whole. The first reason for this was that it seems clear that the indication for tooth extraction and the postoperative situation after extraction will most certainly influence oral QoL, so the statement is difficult to evaluate and does not make sense in the case of a clearly given indication. Secondly, since the major aim of this study was to find out in a differentiated way whether the preventive tooth extraction has an influence on patients’ general condition, we thought it to best include this patient-oriented factor in a risk-benefit assessment
Another fear of many health practitioners is that a drug holiday of antiresorptive treatment could lead to a progression of the underlying disease, skeletal-related events such as pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to the bone and spinal cord compression. These are all associated with high mortality [31] and their functional burden prolongs years after the event [32], placing a significant burden on health care resources [33].
In the present study, a drug holiday has not caused any deterioration of QoL in our collective. Nor does the QoL of osteoporosis and tumor patients differ significantly. However, it has to be mentioned that in the present study only a drug holiday of 2 months was performed. It is questionable whether this short drug interruption has any influence at all on the pharmacokinetics, especially for bisphophonates concerning their physical binding to the bone and the associated half-life of many years. Although there are increasing hints that a drug holiday has no influence on outcome after tooth extractions, high-level evidence is still lacking (15). Based on these data, the updated German guidelines and the statement of the European task force also make a very cautious recommendation for a drug holiday [3,18]. It is additionally important to mention that in all cases the drug holiday had previously been initialized by the attending oncologist or osteologist prescribing the antiresorptive and, therefore, we were only marginally involved in the decision.
The main limitation of this study is that only a questionnaire was used, which depicted the overall health-related QoL of the patients and did not refer to oral health. Furthermore, the heterogeneous intake of antiresorptive medication might be considered as a limitation to the study protocol. The small number of cases is also critical. For these reasons, the application of multifactorial regression models (considering covariants as a medication type) is not possible. Furthermore, for future studies it would be interesting to have more details on the indications leading to extraction. For the pre- and postoperative “drug holiday,” we followed our unit-internal protocol. Interestingly, in almost all cases presented, the drug holiday had previously been initialized by the attending oncologist or osteologist prescribing the antiresorptive and, therefore, we were only marginally involved in the decision. Although hints are increasing that a drug holiday has no influence on outcome, high-level evidence is still lacking. Future studies, therefore, ought to consider both oral and overall health and include more patients to enable the use of multifactorial regression models.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, preventive tooth extractions in patients under antiresorptive treatment have no negative effects on the QoL. Therefore, if indicated, preventive tooth extraction should not be omitted. Patient-oriented outcome measures are important to obtain a good risk–benefit balance for patient-specific treatment planning in patients who undergo antiresorptive treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.R., J.H., O.R.; methodology, T.R., J.M., O.R.; software, M.P., C.R., S.Z.; validation, M.E., C.F., J.H.; formal analysis, T.R., M.P.; investigation, all; resources, O.R., J.H.; data curation, T.R., M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, T.R., O.R.; writing—review and editing, all; visualization, S.Z., M.P., C.R.; supervision, C.F., M.E., J.H., O.R.; project administration, T.R., O.R.; funding acquisition, O.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by DFG—German Research foundation, grant number RI2813/2-1, 2016.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg (protocol code S-088/2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper” if applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in justified cases on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jonathan Griffiths for language editing of the manuscript. We thank Diana Zinser and Megan Sohns for her indefatigable coordination of the specialized consultation hour and study follow-ups.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Cummings, S.R.; San Martin, J.; McClung, M.R.; Siris, E.S.; Eastell, R.; Reid, I.R.; Delmas, P.; Zoog, H.B.; Austin, M.; Wang, A.; et al. Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 361, 756–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Otto, S.; Pautke, C.; van den Wyngaert, T.; Niepel, D.; Schiødt, M. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Prevention, diagnosis and management in patients with cancer and bone metastases. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018, 69, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schiodt, M.; Otto, S.; Fedele, S.; Bedogni, A.; Nicolatou-Galitis, O.; Guggenberger, R.; Herlofson, B.B.; Ristow, O.; Kofod, T. Workshop of European task force on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw-Current challenges. Oral Dis. 2019, 25, 1815–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Marx, R.E.; Stern, D. Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology: A Rationale for Diagnosis and Treatment; Quintessence Publ.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003; ISBN 0867153903. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ristow, O.; Rückschloß, T.; Müller, M.; Berger, M.; Kargus, S.; Pautke, C.; Engel, M.; Hoffmann, J.; Freudlsperger, C. Is the conservative non-surgical management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw an appropriate treatment option for early stages? A long-term single-center cohort study. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2019, 47, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Giudice, A.; Antonelli, A.; Muraca, D.; Fortunato, L. Usefulness of advanced-platelet rich fibrin (A-PRF) and injectable-platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF) in the management of a massive medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): A 5-years follow-up case report. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2020, 31, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Moll, S.; Mueller, S.; Meier, J.K.; Reichert, T.E.; Ettl, T.; Klingelhöffer, C. Patients’ quality of life improves after surgical intervention of stage III medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 25, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Otto, S.; Aljohani, S.; Fliefel, R.; Ecke, S.; Ristow, O.; Burian, E.; Troeltzsch, M.; Pautke, C.; Ehrenfeld, M. Infection as an Important Factor in Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ). Medicina 2021, 57, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ruggiero, S.L.; Dodson, T.B.; Fantasia, J.; Goodday, R.; Aghaloo, T.; Mehrotra, B.; O’Ryan, F. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons position paper on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw--2014 update. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 72, 1938–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yarom, N.; Shapiro, C.L.; Peterson, D.E.; van Poznak, C.H.; Bohlke, K.; Ruggiero, S.L.; Migliorati, C.A.; Khan, A.; Morrison, A.; Anderson, H.; et al. Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 2270–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Yoneda, T.; Hagino, H.; Sugimoto, T.; Ohta, H.; Takahashi, S.; Soen, S.; Taguchi, A.; Toyosawa, S.; Nagata, T.; Urade, M. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: Position paper from the Allied Task Force Committee of Japanese Society for Bone and Mineral Research, Japan Osteoporosis Society, Japanese Society of Periodontology, Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, and Japanese Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. J. Bone Miner. Metab. 2010, 28, 365–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nicolatou-Galitis, O.; Papadopoulou, E.; Vardas, E.; Kouri, M.; Galiti, D.; Galitis, E.; Alexiou, K.-E.; Tsiklakis, K.; Ardavanis, A.; Razis, E.; et al. Alveolar bone histological necrosis observed prior to extractions in patients, who received bone-targeting agents. Oral Dis. 2020, 26, 955–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saia, G.; Blandamura, S.; Bettini, G.; Tronchet, A.; Totola, A.; Bedogni, G.; Ferronato, G.; Nocini, P.F.; Bedogni, A. Occurrence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after surgical tooth extraction. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2010, 68, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ristow, O.; Rückschloß, T.; Moratin, J.; Müller, M.; Kühle, R.; Horn, D.; Pilz, M.; Shavlokhova, V.; Otto, S.; Hoffmann, J.; et al. Wound closure and alveoplasty after preventive tooth extractions in patients with antiresorptive intake—A randomized pilot trial. Oral Dis. 2020, 27, 532–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Poxleitner, P.; Steybe, D.; Kroneberg, P.; Ermer, M.A.; Yalcin-Ülker, G.M.; Schmelzeisen, R.; Voss, P.J. Tooth extractions in patients under antiresorptive therapy for osteoporosis: Primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin for the prevention of antiresorptive agent-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2020, 48, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kamimura, M.; Taguchi, A.; Komatsu, M.; Koiwai, H.; Ashizawa, R.; Ichinose, A.; Takahara, K.; Uchiyama, S.; Kato, H. Long waiting time before tooth extraction may increase delayed wound healing in elderly Japanese. Osteoporos. Int. 2019, 30, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Campisi, G.; Mauceri, R.; Bertoldo, F.; Bettini, G.; Biasotto, M.; Colella, G.; Consolo, U.; Di Fede, O.; Favia, G.; Fusco, V.; et al. Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of Jaws (MRONJ) Prevention and Diagnosis: Italian Consensus Update 2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Schiegnitz, E.; Al-Nawas, B.; Hoefert, S.; Otto, S.; Pautke, C.; Ristow, O.; Voss, P.; Grötz, K.A. S3-Leitlinie Antiresorptiva-assoziierte Kiefernekrosen. AWMF Regist. 2018, 007, 91. [Google Scholar]
  19. Di Fede, O.; Panzarella, V.; Mauceri, R.; Fusco, V.; Bedogni, A.; Lo Muzio, L.; SIPMO, O.B.J.; Campisi, G. The Dental Management of Patients at Risk of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: New Paradigm of Primary Prevention. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 2684924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Capocci, M.; Romeo, U.; Guerra, F.; Mannocci, A.; Tenore, G.; Annibali, S.; Ottolenghi, L. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) and quality of life evaluation: A pilot study. Clin. Ter. 2017, 168, e253–e257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide. Available online: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides/ (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  22. Ludwig, K.; Graf von der Schulenburg, J.-M.; Greiner, W. German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 2018, 36, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Murphy, J.; Mannion, C.J. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws and quality of life: Review and structured analysis. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 58, 619–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miksad, R.A.; Lai, K.-C.; Dodson, T.B.; Woo, S.-B.; Treister, N.S.; Akinyemi, O.; Bihrle, M.; Maytal, G.; August, M.; Gazelle, G.S.; et al. Quality of life implications of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. Oncologist 2011, 16, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Kyrgidis, A.; Triaridis, S.; Kontos, K.; Patrikidou, A.; Andreadis, C.; Constantinidis, J.; Vahtsevanos, K.; Antoniades, K. Quality of life in breast cancer patients with bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws and patients with head and neck cancer: A comparative study using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HN35 questionnaires. Anticancer Res. 2012, 32, 3527–3534. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Rathbone, E.J.; Brown, J.E.; Marshall, H.C.; Collinson, M.; Liversedge, V.; Murden, G.A.; Cameron, D.; Bell, R.; Spensley, S.; Agrawal, R.; et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaw and oral health-related quality of life after adjuvant zoledronic acid: An adjuvant zoledronic acid to reduce recurrence trial subprotocol (BIG01/04). J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 2685–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Oteri, G.; Trifirò, G.; Peditto, M.; Lo Presti, L.; Marcianò, I.; Giorgianni, F.; Sultana, J.; Marcianò, A. Treatment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw and its Impact on a Patient’s Quality of Life: A Single-Center, 10-Year Experience from Southern Italy. Drug Saf. 2018, 41, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oteri, G.; De, P.F.S.; Runci, M.; Peditto, M.; Marcianò, A.; Cicciù, M. Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life after Surgical Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Jaws. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2018, 29, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sadiq, Z.; Sammut, S.; Lopes, V. Non-complex reconstructive techniques in the management of BRONJ: A case series of patient-related outcomes. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 18, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Freiberger, J.J.; Padilla-Burgos, R.; McGraw, T.; Suliman, H.B.; Kraft, K.H.; Stolp, B.W.; Moon, R.E.; Piantadosi, C.A. What is the role of hyperbaric oxygen in the management of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A randomized controlled trial of hyperbaric oxygen as an adjunct to surgery and antibiotics. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 70, 1573–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Haentjens, P.; Magaziner, J.; Colón-Emeric, C.S.; Vanderschueren, D.; Milisen, K.; Velkeniers, B.; Boonen, S. Meta-analysis: Excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 152, 380–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Fischer, S.; Kapinos, K.A.; Mulcahy, A.; Pinto, L.; Hayden, O.; Barron, R. Estimating the long-term functional burden of osteoporosis-related fractures. Osteoporos. Int. 2017, 28, 2843–2851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McKay, R.; Haider, B.; Duh, M.S.; Valderrama, A.; Nakabayashi, M.; Fiorillo, M.; Ristovska, L.; Wen, L.; Kantoff, P. Impact of symptomatic skeletal events on health-care resource utilization and quality of life among patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017, 20, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
OsteoporosisTumor
n%n%
Gender
   Female4583.34066.7
   Male916.72033.3
Age [years]
   Mean70.2 67.8
   SD9.5 11.5
Cancer types
   Breast 3253.3
   Prostate 610.0
   Renal 23.3
   Multiple myeloma 1626.7
   Others 46.8
Bone metastasis
   No54100.01728.3
   Yes 2745.0
   Multiple Myeloma 1626.7
Antiresorptive Treatment
   Bisphosphonates4379.63863.3
      Zoledronic acid918.43660.0
      Ibandronic acid24.123.3
      Alendronic acid2755.1
      Risedronic acid36.1
      Others24
   Denosumab611.11728.3
   Both59.358.3
Duration antiresorptive treatment [months]
   Mean49.8 43.8
   SD44.7 42.4
Table 2. Results of EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D) for high-risk group.
Table 2. Results of EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D) for high-risk group.
High-Risk Group
T0T1 (4 Weeks)T2 (1 Year)
n%n%n%
Mobility
   No problems3558.33456.74168.3
   Slight problems915.0915.046.7
   Moderate problems1321.71118.3813.3
   Severe problems35.046.7610.0
   Unable to walk about0023.311.7
Self-care
   No problems4473.34575.04473.3
   Slight problems813.3711.7915.0
   Moderate problems58.358.335.0
   Severe problems11.723.335.0
   Unable to to wash or dress23.311.711.7
Usual activities
   No problems3558.33050.03660.0
   Slight problems1118.31525.0915.0
   Moderate problems1016.7813.3915.0
   Severe problems35.0711.7610.0
   Unable to do usual activities11.70000
Pain/discomfort
   No pain/discomfort1830.01830.02033.3
   Slight pain/discomfort1220.01830.01728.3
   Moderate pain/discomfort2033.31728.31423.3
   Severe pain/discomfort1016.7610.0915.0
   Extreme pain/discomfort0011.700
Anxiety/depression
   Not anxious/depressed2948.33456.73863.3
   Slightly anxious/depressed1423.31525.01321.7
   Moderately anxious/depressed1423.3813.3610.0
   Severely anxious/depressed35.035.035.0
   Extremely anxious/depressed000000
Table 3. Results of EQ-5D for low-risk group.
Table 3. Results of EQ-5D for low-risk group.
Low-Risk Group
T0T1 (4 Weeks)T2 (1 Year)
n%n%n%
Mobility
   No problems2648.13259.32444.4
   Slight problems814.8713.01018.5
   Moderate problems1222.2713.01120.4
   Severe problems611.147.4713.0
   Unable to walk about23.747.423.7
Self-care
   No problems3870.44481.53972.2
   Slight problems47.447.4713.0
   Moderate problems713.035.635.6
   Severe problems47.423.747.4
   Unable to to wash or dress11.911.911.9
Usual activities
   No problems2953.72851.92750.0
   Slight problems59.3916.7916.7
   Moderate problems1120.4713.0916.7
   Severe problems713.0814.8713.0
   Unable to do usual activities23.723.723.7
Pain/discomfort
   No pain/discomfort1222.21324.11120.4
   Slight pain/discomfort916.71731.51425.9
   Moderate pain/discomfort1629.61425.91731.5
   Severe pain/discomfort1222.2916.71018.5
   Extreme pain/discomfort59.311.923.7
Anxiety/depression
   Not anxious/depressed2342.62750.02953.7
   Slightly anxious/depressed1425.91935.21018.5
   Moderately anxious/depressed1324.159.3916.7
   Severely anxious/depressed23.735.635.6
   Extremely anxious/depressed23.70035.6
Table 4. Comparison of the high-risk group and the low-risk group over the time points T0, T1, and T2.
Table 4. Comparison of the high-risk group and the low-risk group over the time points T0, T1, and T2.
Time PointHigh-Risk GroupLow-Risk Groupp-Value for Group Difference
MeanSDMeanSD
Index scoreT00.810.190.710.290.037 *
T10.800.230.770.260.321
T20.820.220.740.270.691
EQ-VAST068.0019.4961.7625.290.146
T169.1721.7569.0624.380.304
T269.1322.9767.3724.360.540
* p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rückschloß, T.; Moratin, J.; Zittel, S.; Pilz, M.; Roser, C.; Engel, M.; Freudlsperger, C.; Hoffmann, J.; Ristow, O. Influence of Preventive Tooth Extractions on Quality of Life in Patients with Antiresorptive Intake—A Prospective Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111650

AMA Style

Rückschloß T, Moratin J, Zittel S, Pilz M, Roser C, Engel M, Freudlsperger C, Hoffmann J, Ristow O. Influence of Preventive Tooth Extractions on Quality of Life in Patients with Antiresorptive Intake—A Prospective Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21):11650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111650

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rückschloß, Thomas, Julius Moratin, Sven Zittel, Maximilian Pilz, Christoph Roser, Michael Engel, Christian Freudlsperger, Jürgen Hoffmann, and Oliver Ristow. 2021. "Influence of Preventive Tooth Extractions on Quality of Life in Patients with Antiresorptive Intake—A Prospective Longitudinal Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 21: 11650. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111650

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop