Purpose: The reported incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) ranges from 0.94% to 18.6%. This cohort study aimed to calculate the incidence of and identify the risk factors for ONJ in patients with cancer treated with intravenous zoledronate, ibandronate, and pamidronate. Patients and Methods: Data analyzed included age, sex, smoking status, underlying disease, medical and dental history, bisphosphonates (BP) type, and doses administered. Relative risks, crude and adjusted odds ratios (aORs), and cumulative hazard ratios for ONJ development were calculated. Results: We included 1,621 patients who received 29,006 intravenous doses of BP, given monthly. Crude ONJ incidence was 8.5%, 3.1%, and 4.9% in patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, respectively. Patients with breast cancer demonstrated a reduced risk for ONJ development, which turned out to be nonsignificant after adjustment for other variables. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that use of dentures (aOR = 2.02; 95% CI, 1.03 to 3.96), history of dental extraction (aOR = 32.97; 95% CI, 18.02 to 60.31), having ever received zoledronate (aOR = 28.09; 95% CI, 5.74 to 137.43), and each zoledronate dose (aOR = 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.56) were associated with increased risk for ONJ development. Smoking, periodontitis, and root canal treatment did not increase risk for ONJ in patients receiving BP. Conclusion: The conclusions of this study validated dental extractions and use of dentures as risk factors for ONJ development. Ibandronate and pamidronate at the dosages and frequency used in this study seem to exhibit a safer drug profile concerning ONJ complication; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these results. Before initiation of a bisphosphonate, patients should have a comprehensive dental examination. Patients with a challenging dental situation should have dental care attended to before initiation of these drugs.

Dealing with flood hazard and risk requires approaches rooted in both natural and social sciences, which provided the nexus for the ongoing debate on socio-hydrology. Various combinations of non-structural and structural flood risk reduction options are available to communities. Focusing on flood risk and the information associated with it, developing risk management plans is required but often overlooks public perception of a threat. The perception of risk varies in many different ways, especially between the authorities and the affected public. It is because of this disconnection that many risk management plans concerning floods have failed in the past. This paper examines the private adaptation capacity and willingness with respect to flooding in two different catchments in Greece prone to multiple flood events during the last 20 years. Two studies (East Attica and Evros) were carried out, comprised of a survey questionnaire of 155 and 157 individuals, from a peri-urban (East Attica) and a rural (Evros) area, respectively, and they focused on those vulnerable to periodic (rural area) and flash floods (peri-urban area). Based on the comparisons drawn from these responses, and identifying key issues to be addressed when flood risk management plans are implemented, improvements are being recommended for the social dimension surrounding such implementation. As such, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on human–environment interaction in socio-hydrology.

Since biodiversity is a multifaceted aspect of natural systems, several indices have been suggested to measure it. In this paper, we examined a number of well-known diversity indexes to see whether some performed better than others when applied to forest data. In order to reach this goal, we used data on basic forest variables (such as the diameters, heights, and volumes of trees) from forest plots to see if common diversity indices lead to the same conclusions about changes in biodiversity in a pairwise comparison (i.e., comparing the same region at two different times or two different regions at the same time). Out of a collection of 17 diversity indices, 8 of them exhibited robustness, indicating their constant ability to demonstrate either an increase or decrease in biodiversity over pairwise comparisons. However, it is important to note that the remaining seven diversity indices may yield inconsistent or inconclusive results, but only with regard to forest data, highlighting the complexity and nuances of measuring biodiversity with different sorts of data. In this review article, all 17 indices are presented, allowing the reader to choose which ones are most applicable to their particular dataset (genetic, econometric, sociometric, etc.).