This study evaluated the angiogenesis-enhancing potential of a tricalcium silicate-based mineral trioxide aggregate (ProRoot MTA), Biodentine, and a novel bioceramic root canal sealer (Well-Root ST) in human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs), human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPLSCs), and human tooth germ stem cells (hTGSCs). Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium was conditioned for 24 h by exposure to ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, or Well-Root ST specimens (prepared according to the manufacturers' instructions). The cells were cultured in these conditioned media and their viability was assessed with 3-(4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxy-methoxy-phenyl)-2-(4-sulfo-phenyl)-2H tetrazolium (MTS) on days 1, 3, 7, 10, and 14. Angiogenic growth factors [platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)] were assayed by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on days 1, 7, and 14. Human umbilical vein endothelial cell (HUVEC) migration assays were used to evaluate the vascular effects of the tested materials at 6-8 h. Statistical analyses included Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Friedman and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. None of tricalcium silicate-based materials were cytotoxic and all induced a similar release of angiogenic growth factors (PDGF, FGF-2, and VEGF) (p>0.05). The best cell viability was observed for hDPSCs (p<0.05) with all tricalcium silicate-based materials at day 14. Tube formation by HUVECs showed a significant increase with all tested materials (p<0.05). The tricalcium silicate-based materials showed potential for angiogenic stimulation of all stem cell types and significantly enhanced tube formation by HUVECs.

Purpose: Although various prophylactic and/or postoperative systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested to minimize failure after dental implant placement and postoperative infection, the role of antibiotics in implant dentistry is still controversial. The purposes of this questionnaire study were to determine the current antibiotic prescribing habits of clinicians in conjunction with dental implant placement and to understand whether any consensus has been reached among implant surgery performing clinicians. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent by electronic mail to all members of the Turkish Dental Society. The questions were related to whether antibiotics were routinely prescribed either pre- or/and postoperatively during routine dental implant placement. The respondents were also asked to specify their workplace and education. The results were analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive and chi-square analyses were used to compare categorical data; Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the quantitative data by category. Results: A total of 429 members responded to the questionnaire. The clinicians having more experience had a greater tendency to prescribe preoperative antibiotics (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the postoperative antibiotic prescription choice of the clinician according to the clinicians’ experience (p > 0.05). A total of 175 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe preoperative antibiotics when there was systemic comorbidity; 99 of the clinicians preferred to prescribe antibiotics before every implant surgery. The aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics by the clinicians. A total of 38.58% of the respondents (n = 130) who were prescribing preoperative antibiotics, 2000 mg aminopenicillin was given 1 h before the surgical procedure. Dentists and solo private practitioners were prescribing more preoperative antibiotics (p < 0,05). Conclusions: There was no consensus among clinicians regarding the use of antibiotics in association with routine dental implant placement. Aminopenicillins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics for both pre- and postoperatively. Furthermore, most of the antibiotic regimens being used are not in accordance with the current published data.

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is characterized by exposed necrotic bone persisting for more than 8 weeks in the maxillofacial region in patients using antiresorptive or antiangiogenetic drugs for several treatment options like bone metastasis or osteoporosis. There are several treatment options studied in scientific literature, and one of them with promising results is using platelet concentrates adjunct to surgical therapy. The aim of this study is to examine the therapeutic effect of leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on patients with MRONJ. This 2-centered study investigated patients referred to oral and maxillofacial surgery departments of 2 university clinics between the years 2014 and 2020 with the diagnosis of MRONJ. Demographic data, the indication of the drug usage, drug type, duration, administration route, and systemic comorbidities of the patients were recorded. L-PRF was applied to 20 osteonecrotic lesions of 19 patients following surgical debridement. The male/female ratio was 5/14. Except 1 of the patients, all of the indications of medication were neoplasia-related. The mean follow-up period of patients was 27.9±9.2 months. Most common antirezorptive drug was zoledronate (84.2%). Complete resolution was observed in 16 necrosis sites (80%). It could be concluded that the use of L-PRF may represent an important adjunct in the surgical management of MRONJ.

Baştuğ AY, et al. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2021 Dec;52:e2. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2101360068

Background and Objectives: In this experimental study, the prophylactic effect of systemically administered erythropoietin (EPO) in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) was evaluated. Materials and Methods: The osteonecrosis model was established using 36 Sprague Dawley rats. EPO was systemically applied before and/or after tooth extraction. Groups were formed based on the application time. All samples were evaluated histologically, histomorphometrically, and immunohistochemically. A statistically significant difference in new bone formation was observed between the groups (p < 0.001). Results: When new bone-formation rates were compared, no significant differences were observed between the control group and the EPO, ZA+PostEPO, and ZA+Pre-PostEPO groups (p = 1, 0.402, and 1, respectively); however, this rate was significantly lower in the ZA+PreEPO group (p = 0.021). No significant differences in new bone formation were observed between the ZA+PostEPO and ZA+PreEPO groups (p = 1); however, this rate was significantly higher in the ZA+Pre-PostEPO group (p = 0.009). The ZA+Pre-PostEPO group demonstrated significantly higher intensity level in VEGF protein expression than the other groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Administering EPO two weeks pre-extraction and continuing EPO treatment for three weeks post-extraction in ZA-treated rats optimized the inflammatory reaction, increased angiogenesis by inducing VEGF, and positively affected bone healing. Further studies are needed to determine the exact durations and doses.