Management of Tooth Extraction in Patients Taking Antiresorptive Drugs: An Evidence Mapping Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a well-known severe adverse reaction of antiresorptive, antiangiogenic or targeted therapies, and usually occurs after tooth extraction. This review is aimed at determining the efficacy of any intervention of tooth extraction to reduce the risk of MRONJ in patients taking antiresorptive drugs, and present the distribution of evidence in these clinical questions. Methods: Primary studies and reviews were searched from nine databases (Medline, EMBase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, WOSCC, Inspec, KCI-KJD, SciELO and GIM) and two registers (ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov) to 30 November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROBIS tool in reviews, and the RoB 2 tool and ROBINS-I tool in primary studies. Data were extracted and then a meta-analysis was undertaken between primary studies where appropriate. Results: Fifteen primary studies and five reviews were included in this evidence mapping. One review was at low risk of bias, and one randomized controlled trial was at moderate risk, while the other eighteen studies were at high, serious or critical risk. Results of syntheses: (1) there was no significant risk difference found between drug holiday and drug continuation except for a subgroup in which drug continuation was supported in the reduced incidence proportion of MRONJ for over a 3-month follow-up; (2) the efficacy of the application of autologous platelet concentrates in tooth extraction was uncertain; (3) there was no significant difference found between different surgical techniques in any subgroup analysis; and (4) the risk difference with antibacterial prophylaxis versus control was −0.57, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.29. Conclusions: There is limited evidence to demonstrate that a drug holiday is unnecessary (and may in fact be potentially harmful) in dental practice. Primary closure and antibacterial prophylaxis are recommended despite limited evidences. All evidence have been graded as either of a low or very low quality, and thus further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to answer this clinical question.