Background Tyrosine kinase receptor family is involved in tumor growth, pathological angiogenesis and the progression (metastasis) of cancer. Sunitinib (Sutent®) inhibits members of the tyrosine kinase receptor family affecting the induction of angiogenesis and tumor progression. It is not clear if sunitinib increases the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ). The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review about ONJ related to sunitinib, describing existing cases and possible associated risk factors. Material and Methods The PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched without date restriction up to September 2018. We included prospective and retrospective observational studies, cross-sectional studies, clinical cases and series of cases, involving only human subjects. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Results A total of 13 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria of which 7 were clinical cases, 5 case series and a retrospective study. All the articles were published between 2009 and 2018. Of the 102 patients treated with sunitinib analyzed in this study, 58 developed ONJ, being or having been treated with sunitinib and bisphosphonates or exclusively with sunitinib. Conclusions In this systematic review, we found an increase of ONJ in patients who are medicated with other drugs different than bisphosphonates and denosumab. It is necessary that dentists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons as well as oncologists know the risk of ONJ that these antiresorptive drugs could have. There is a need to continue researching in this field with the aim of an increasing knowledge in this area and creating an adequate protocol of action for this population. Key words: Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws, osteonecrosis of the jaws, sunitinib, systematic review.

No abstract

Background: To evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) in immediate implant procedures (IIP) placed in conjunction with platelet concentrates (PCs) compared to IIP without PCs. Methods: A search was performed in four databases. Clinical trials evaluating MBL of IIP placed with and without PCs were included. The random effects model was conducted for meta-analysis. Results: Eight clinical trials that evaluated MBL in millimeters were included. A total of 148 patients and 232 immediate implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction on MBL of IIP placed with PCs when compared to the non-PCs group at 6 months (p < 0.00001) and 12 months (p < 0.00001) follow-ups. No statistically significant differences were observed on MBL of IIP when compared PCs + bone graft group vs. only bone grafting at 6 months (p = 0.51), and a significant higher MBL of IIP placed with PCs + bone graft when compared to only bone grafting at 12 months was found (p = 0.03). Conclusions: MBL of IIP at 6 and 12 months follow-ups is lower when PCs are applied in comparison to not placing PCs, which may lead to more predictable implant treatments in the medium term. However, MBL seems not to diminish when PCs + bone graft are applied when compared to only bone grafting.