Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 18:54-92. doi: 10.1111/clr.13282.

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.
Division of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Institute of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research, Center of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Orthodontics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.



A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?"


Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro- or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and peri-implantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed.


Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified. Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included. Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls. Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.


Low-dose oral BP intake for osteoporosis treatment, in general, does not compromise implant therapy, that is, patients on ARDs do not lose more implants nor get more implant-related complications/failures comparing to implant patients without BP intake. There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of high-dose BPs or other widely used ARDs (e.g., denosumab), or on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures. Patients with high-dose ARD intake for management of malignancies, patients on oral BP over a longer period of time, and patients with comorbidities should be considered as high-risk patients for MRONJ.


antiresorptive drugs; bisphosphonates; dental implants; hormone replacement therapy; medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws; systematic review


Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center