Piero Papi

Dr. Piero Papi

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2016 in Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PPPiero Papi
Piero Papi
DRDaniele Rosella
Daniele Rosella
RGRita Giardino
Rita Giardino
ECEmauele Cicalini
Emauele Cicalini
LPLuca Piccoli
Luca Piccoli
GPGiorgio Pompa
Giorgio Pompa
Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse drug reaction, consisting of progressive bone destruction in the maxillofacial region of patients. ONJ can be caused by two pharmacological agents: Antiresorptive (including bisphosphonates (BPs) and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand inhibitors) and antiangiogenic. MRONJ pathophysiology is not completely elucidated. There are several suggested hypothesis that could explain its unique localization to the jaws: Inflammation or infection, microtrauma, altered bone remodeling or over suppression of bone resorption, angiogenesis inhibition, soft tissue BPs toxicity, peculiar biofilm of the oral cavity, terminal vascularization of the mandible, suppression of immunity, or Vitamin D deficiency. Dental screening and adequate treatment are fundamental to reduce the risk of osteonecrosis in patients under antiresorptive or antiangiogenic therapy, or before initiating the administration. The treatment of MRONJ is generally difficult and the optimal therapy strategy is still to be established. For this reason, prevention is even more important. It is suggested that a multidisciplinary team approach including a dentist, an oncologist, and a maxillofacial surgeon to evaluate and decide the best therapy for the patient. The choice between a conservative treatment and surgery is not easy, and it should be made on a case by case basis. However, the initial approach should be as conservative as possible. The most important goals of treatment for patients with established MRONJ are primarily the control of infection, bone necrosis progression, and pain. The aim of this paper is to represent the current knowledge about MRONJ, its preventive measures and management strategies.

Pier Carmine PassarelliPier Carmine Passarelli
Pier Carmine Passarelli
SPStefano Pagnoni
Stefano Pagnoni
GPGiovan Battista Piccirillo
Giovan Battista Piccirillo
VDViviana Desantis
Viviana Desantis
MBMichele Benegiamo
Michele Benegiamo
ADAntonio D’addona
Antonio D’addona
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate oral status, the reasons for tooth extractions and related risk factors in adult patients attending a hospital dental practice. Methods: 120 consecutive patients ranging from 23 to 91 years in age (mean age of 63.3 ± 15.8) having a total of 554 teeth extracted were included. Surveys about general health status were conducted and potential risk factors such as smoking, diabetes and age were investigated. Results: a total of 1795 teeth were missing after extraction procedures and the mean number of remaining teeth after the extraction process was 16.8 ± 9.1 per patient. Caries (52.2%) was the most common reason for extraction along with periodontal disease (35.7%). Males were more prone to extractions, with 394 of the teeth extracted out of the total of 554 (71.1%). Male sex (β = 2.89; 95% CI 1.26, 4.53; p = 0.001) and smoking habit (β = 2.95; 95% CI 1.12, 4.79; p = 0.002) were related to a higher number of teeth extracted. Age (β = −0.24; 95% CI −0.31, −0.16; p < 0.001) and diabetes (β = −4.47; 95% CI −7.61, −1.33; p = 0.006) were related to a higher number of missing teeth at evaluation time. Moreover, periodontal disease was more common as a reason of extraction among diabetic patients than among non-diabetic ones (p = 0.04). Conclusions: caries and periodontal disease were the most common causes of extraction in a relatively old study population: further screening strategies might be required for the early interception of caries and periodontal disease.

21 March 2017 in Pain Research and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CPCarlo Di Paolo
Carlo Di Paolo
ADAnna D’uRso
Anna D’uRso
PPPiero Papi
Piero Papi
FSFrancesco Di Sabato
Francesco Di Sabato
DRDaniele Rosella
Daniele Rosella
Antonella PolimeniAntonella Polimeni
Antonella Polimeni
Aim. Headache is one of the most common diseases associated with Temporomandibular Disorders (TMDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate, retrospectively, if headache influences TMD’s symptoms. Material and Methods. A total sample of 1198 consecutive TMD patients was selected. After a neurological examination, a diagnosis of headache, according to the latest edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, was performed in 625 subjects. Patients were divided into two groups based on presence/absence of headache: Group with Headache (GwH) and Group without Headache (GwoH). Descriptive statistics and Chi-square index were performed. Results. Sociodemographic (gender, marital status, and occupation) and functional factors, occlusion (occlusal and skeletal classes, dental formula, and occlusal abnormalities), and familiar pain did not show a statistically significant correlation in either group. Intensity and frequency of neck pain, arthralgia of TMJ, and myalgia showed higher correlation values in GwH. Conclusion. This study is consistent with previous literature in showing a close relationship between headache and TMD. All data underlines that headache makes pain parameters more intense and frequent. Therefore, an early and multidisciplinary treatment of TMDs should be performed in order to avoid the overlay of painful events that could result in pain chronicity.

25 October 2021 in Antibiotics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Pier Carmine PassarelliPier Carmine Passarelli
Pier Carmine Passarelli
ANAndrea Netti
Andrea Netti
MLMichele Antonio ANTONIO Lopez
Michele Antonio ANTONIO Lopez
EGEleonora Favetti Giaquinto
Eleonora Favetti Giaquinto
GRGiuseppe De Rosa
Giuseppe De Rosa
ADAntonio D’addona
Antonio D’addona
Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified (n = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.

1 July 2021 in International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Paolo De AngelisPaolo De Angelis
Paolo De Angelis
SAS. De Angelis
S. De Angelis
PPP.C. Passarelli
P.C. Passarelli
MLM.G. Liguori
M.G. Liguori
GPG. Pompa
G. Pompa
ADA. D’aDdona
A. D’aDdona

28 February 2020 in In Vivo
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FFFrancesca De Felice
Francesca De Felice
NPNicola Pranno
Nicola Pranno
PPPiero Papi
Piero Papi
OBOrlando Brugnoletti
Orlando Brugnoletti
VTVincenzo Tombolini
Vincenzo Tombolini
APAntonella Polimeni
Antonella Polimeni
Background/Aim: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in randomized clinical trials for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of IMRT and 3D-CRT and identify differences in grade ≥2 xerostomia incidence and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied. Random-effects models were used. Primary endpoint was xerostomia of grade 2 or worse. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and loco-regional control (LRC). Results: Three randomized clinical trials representing 213 patients were identified. Global, grade ≥2 acute xerostomia and late xerostomia at 1 and 2 years after treatment were reduced with the IMRT technique (RR=0.71, 95%CI=0.59-0.86, RR=0.45, 95%CI=0.31-0.65 and RR=0.26, 95%CI=0.15-0.46, respectively). IMRT was not associated with significant OS and LRC improvement compared with 3D-CRT, with OR of 0.70 (95%CI=0.39-1.24; p=0.22) and 1.50 (95%CI=0.75-2.98; p=0.25). Conclusion: This meta-analysis explored the value of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT and confirmed the superiority of IMRT over 3D-CRT in terms of grade ≥2 xerostomia rates, but not on clinical outcomes. Its positive impact on tumor control and survival remains to be proven.