Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Osteology · October 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background/Objectives: Evidence on the biological integrity of clinically stable dental implants involved in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is limited. This single-patient human retrieval study characterized the bone–implant interface within a mandibular sequestrum associated with high-dose denosumab therapy, with particular emphasis on the distinction between persistent bone-to-implant contact and biologically viable osseointegration. Methods: A spontaneously exfoliated mandibular sequestrum containing five implants that had remained clinically stable relative to the surrounding bone during earlier phases of MRONJ progression was retrieved from a patient receiving denosumab for metastatic prostate cancer. The specimen was examined by undecalcified histology and histomorphometry. Selected peri-implant and inter-implant bone regions were further evaluated using synchrotron radiation-based phase-contrast microtomography and neural-network-assisted segmentation of osteocyte lacunae. Bone-to-implant contact was quantified over the entire endosseous implant surface (EBIC) and from the first coronal bone contact to the implant apex (FBIC). Results: Persistent bone-to-implant contact was present around all five implants despite extensive osteonecrosis. Histology showed non-vital bone, empty osteocyte lacunae, microfractures, bacterial colonization, demineralized areas, Howship-like resorption lacunae without identifiable osteoclasts, and no detectable osteoblastic activity in the examined fields. Mean EBIC was 42.45 ± 13.41%, whereas mean FBIC was 84.40 ± 4.17%, indicating substantial residual physical contact apical to areas of coronal bone loss. In the sampled regions, peri-implant bone showed lower osteocyte lacunar volume and numerical density and broader relative mineralization distributions than inter-implant bone. Because the observations derived from one patient and non-independent anatomical regions, these comparisons are descriptive and hypothesis-generating. Conclusions: The clinical stability of an implant relative to the surrounding bone should not be interpreted as evidence of biological integrity of the peri-implant interface; at advanced stages, implants may become mobile together with the necrotic sequestrum despite retaining substantial histological bone-to-implant contact. Importantly, persistent histomorphometric contact should not be interpreted as evidence of biologically viable or functional osseointegration. These findings highlight a dissociation between the implant clinical stability, physical bone contact, and biological integrity of the peri-implant interface. Multimodal human retrieval analysis may help characterize the microstructural consequences of MRONJ, although the respective contributions of antiresorptive treatment, infection, peri-implant disease, and mechanical loading require investigation in larger, independently validated datasets.