Identifying a predictive level of serum C-terminal telopeptide associated with a low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw secondary to oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Camille Ghio; Robinson Gravier-Dumonceau; Pierre Lafforgue; Roch Giorgi; Thao Pham

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318260

. 2025 May 5;20(5):e0318260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260

Identifying a predictive level of serum C-terminal telopeptide associated with a low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw secondary to oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Camille Ghio ¹, Robinson Gravier-Dumonceau ², Pierre Lafforgue ¹, Roch Giorgi ², Thao Pham ^1,^*

Editor: Sian Yik Lim³

PMCID: PMC12052178 PMID: 40323917

Abstract

Objective

Our aim was to determine serum C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX) thresholds for predicting the minimal risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in patients undergoing anti-resorptive therapy prior to oral surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBase, and the Cochrane Library up to September 2023 for case-control, prospective and retrospective studies that assessed sCTX levels in patients exposed to anti-resorptive drugs who underwent oral surgery. We extracted data using a predetermined form. We performed an original percentile meta-analysis method, following PRISMA-DTA guidelines and descriptive analysis to identify the threshold associated with the lowest risk while assessing the overall result of the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles with a random-effect model with weighting by DerSimonian and Laird (RStudio software [v. 4.2.0]).

Results

Seven studies involving 1281 patients were included. Most patients (96%) were treated for osteoporosis, predominantly with oral bisphosphonates (94.5%). Individual data were available for 58 patients. In the entire population of patients who experienced MRONJ after oral surgery (n = 113), the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles of sCTX were 338.0 pg/mL [95%CI: 190,3; 485,7], 401.9 pg/mL [95%CI: 191,3; 612,6], and 458.0 pg/mL [95%CI: 190,4; 725,6], respectively.

Among those treated with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis (n = 38), the sCTX 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles were 185.3 pg/mL [95%CI: 131,3; 239,3] 187.4 pg/mL [95%CI: 133,9; 240,8] and 188.6 pg/mL [95%CI: 135,4; 241,9], respectively. The determination of these same percentiles with individual data analysis yielded similar results, i.e., 202.0, 257.0 and 260.0 pg/mL.

Conclusion

This pioneering meta-analysis assesses the risk of MRONJ by analyzing sCTX levels in patients undergoing oral surgery while exposed to antiresorptive drugs. Among patients receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis, a sCTX threshold of 260 pg/mL is linked to an extremely low risk of MRONJ occurrence, surpassing the 99^th percentile. Conversely, for patients undergoing treatment for cancer-related conditions, sCTX levels do not reliably serve as a biomarker for identifying this risk.

Introduction

Antiresorptive drugs (ARD) including bisphosphonates and denosumab, have demonstrated efficacy in osteoporosis management, both in primary and secondary fracture prevention, as well as in reducing associated mortality [1–4]. They have also demonstrated efficacy in cancer-related conditions, i.e., metastatic bone lesions and multiple myeloma lesions.

However, the use of ARD for osteoporosis has seen a decline since the 2010s [5–8]. This decrease can, among other things, be attributed to concerns regarding adverse events associated with anti-resorptive therapies, notably osteonecrosis of the jaw [9,10], even though this side effect is rare and does not challenge the overall positive risk-benefit balance of these treatments [11–14].

Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) cases have been first reported with bisphosphonates in 2003 and similar cases have been documented with denosumab. Since then, osteonecrosis of the jaw has also been reported in patients in the absence of antiresorptive therapy intake. [15–17]. Factors associated with MRONJ include underlying bone disease, dosage and frequency of ARD therapy, smoking, poor oral hygiene, local infections and dental procedures involving bone intrusion [14,18,19]. The incidence of MRONJ is 10 times higher in cancer patients compared to osteoporotic patients. Although rare, this condition is considered a serious adverse event, leading to several clinical issues, including pain and discomfort, difficulty in eating and speaking and infection. The chronic pain, functional impairments, and visible bone exposure associated with this condition can significantly impact the patient’s quality of life.

Therefore, there is interest in identifying biomarkers capable of assessing the risk of MRONJ in a patient undergoing ARD therapy before receiving dental care. Among potential biomarkers, serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen (sCTX) is the most studied bone turnover marker [20–23]. From a population of 30 consecutive patients exposed to bisphosphonates who developed MRONJ after oral surgery, Marx et al. were the first to propose risk thresholds: the risk was high if sCTX levels were below 100 pg/mL, moderate if levels were between 100 and 150 pg/mL, and low above 150 pg/mL. However, subsequent studies have not confirmed the protective character of the 150 mg/mL threshold for sCTX, without other thresholds being assessed [24].

Our aim was to determine a safety sCTX threshold capable of assessing the lowest risk of MRONJ in a patient undergoing anti-resorptive therapy prior to dental care through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The present meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA declaration) [25] and is registered on PROSPERO under the number CRD42024502830.

Study selection criteria

Our eligibility criteria were defined according to population, exposure, comparison, outcomes, and study type (PECOS). We included studies involving patients exposed to ARD who developed MRONJ after oral surgery. Oral surgery included tooth extraction, implants, and alveoloplasty.

Eligible studies were required to have data on sCTX levels available as the index test whether individuals or pooled. We excluded studies where sCTX levels of patients with spontaneous MRONJ were mixed with those experiencing MRONJ after oral surgery.

Patients exposed to ARD therapy who underwent an oral surgery without developing MRONJ were considered as comparators.

Any prospective and retrospective studies, regardless of the study design, were eligible. We also consider case series when patients ≥ 2. We did not consider in vitro or animal studies, single case studies, comments, editorials, systematic reviews. We did not use any date restrictions. We only considered studies published in English.

Information sources, literature search, and study selection

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 30, 2023. We applied specific search strategies tailored to each database. All search strategies are detailed in S1 File. Two authors (C.G., T.P.) independently screened the identified records for eligibility. Any disagreements between the authors were discussed reaching consensus, and if consensus could not be reached, a third author (P.L.) was invited for the final decision.

Data collection

We extracted data regarding study design, demographics, treatment indication (osteoporosis versus cancer), drug characteristics (molecules, dosage, mode of administration), and sCTX levels (mean, standard deviation [SD], median, interquartile range [Q1, Q3], individual levels when available and assay method) using pre-designed forms.

Risk of bias assessment

For each of the included studies, we independently and in duplicate assessed risk of bias on the basis of the results obtained, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies and Case Control Studies [26], and converted the scores to AHRQ standards (good, fair, and poor).

Synthesis of results and meta-analysis

We performed a descriptive analysis of all eligible studies. In each study, patients were categorized based on their demographic characteristics, disease, and treatment. Weighted means for the median age, mean sCTX levels, and median sCTX levels were determined, according to the number of patients in each study. For quantitative synthesis, we assessed sCTX thresholds using percentile meta-analysis and descriptive statistics.

To assess the sCTX threshold beyond which the risk of developing MRONJ following oral surgery is minimal, we applied various analysis methods. We calculated the 95^th, 97.5^th, and 99^th percentiles when individual data were available. In cases where only pooled data were available, the same percentiles were estimated from the mean and standard deviation on the assumption that the distribution of the data followed a normal distribution. As there is to our knowledge, no validated method of percentile meta-analysis in the current literature, we applied therefore, the most appropriate approach, i.e., a crude means meta-analysis (based on a single sample) where the mean was replaced by the percentile. The outcome of the meta-analysis therefore reflects the weighted average of the percentiles of each study. To facilitate this calculation, the standard deviation of the percentile was bootstrapped from individual sCTX data. For studies providing pooled data, all percentiles from the 1^st to the 99^th were estimated based on the mean and standard deviation, on the assumption of a normal distribution. These estimates were utilized to fictitiously portray the individual sample data. Subsequently, the standard deviation of the percentile was estimated through bootstrapping.

Meta-analyses were carried out to assess the overall result of the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles, using the standard deviation of the percentile concerned. These three percentiles were calculated for exploratory purposes. However, our primary aim was to establish the safety threshold, thus defined by the 99th percentile, representing the point beyond which 1% of patients treated with ARD therapy experience MRONJ following oral surgery. A random-effect model with weighting by the method of DerSimonian and Laird was used for this purpose [27]. Meta-analyses of subgroups of studies according to the drug (bisphosphonates and denosumab) and to the bisphosphonates route of administration (oral and intravenous) were also planned, using the same method. Due to the small number of studies, the exploratory nature of the analysis and the various sources of error induced by the estimation and calculation methods used, no additional analysis of heterogeneity was planned.

Finally, when individual sCTX data were available, they were grouped and described in terms of mean and standard deviation, median and interquartile range, minimum and maximum values, and 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles. The number of subjects with sCTX levels above 150, 200, 300 and 400 pg/mL was also calculated. This descriptive analysis was also applied to subgroups according to treatment indication (osteoporosis and cancer). A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test the normality of the data distribution [28].

The various analyses were performed using RStudio software (v. 4.2.0).

Results

Search results and study selection

The initial database search yielded a total of 250 records, comprising 96 from PubMed, 150 from Embase, and 4 from the Cochrane Library. Following the removal of 73 duplicates, a comprehensive review of the titles and abstracts of the remaining 177 studies was conducted. During this selection phase, 131 records were excluded, resulting in 46 records that underwent a full article review for eligibility. One duplicate was eliminated after full reading of the articles (same article but different title and journal). The Fig 1 provides a full description of the selection process. A total of 7 studies were included in this analysis [25].

Study and patients characteristics

The included studies consisted of 2 prospective cohort studies, 4 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 case-control study, totaling 7 observational studies, all meeting the predetermined eligibility criteria for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis, including a total of 1,281 patients (S1 Table) [22,29–34].

Among them, 5 studies provided individual data, including sCTX level, indication for ARD therapy, molecules and dosage administered, and attributed cause of osteonecrosis (n = 58) [29–33]. The other two studies presented pooled data concerning 1223 patients [22,34]. We contacted the original authors to obtain individual data but were unsuccessful.

The only ARDs studied were bisphosphonates, predominantly administered orally (94.5%). No study reported cases of patients treated with denosumab. Four studies had control groups (n = 1151), but with no data available regarding sCTX (individual data or pooled data) [22,30,33,34]. Thus, planned analyses regarding patients treated with denosumab, intravenous bisphosphonates, and comparisons versus controls could not be performed.

The assessment of studies regarding the risk of bias is summarized in S2 Table. Overall, the quality of the studies was poor for 3 studies [29,31,32], fair for 2 [30,35] and good for 2 [22,33].

Among the 1281 patients included in the 7 trials, 130 had experienced MRONJ, and 1151 were considered controls, i.e., patients exposed to antiresorptive drugs who had undergone dental surgery without developing MRONJ. However, we excluded 17 patients from the 130 with MRONJ for the following reasons: in 7 cases, osteonecrosis of the jaw had occurred spontaneously in the absence of oral surgery, 4 had sCTX missing data and 6 patients were identical in Kwon’s studies of 2009 and 2011 [29,30].

Finally, we analyzed data from 1,264 patients, all of whom had undergone oral surgery. They were treated with bisphosphonates, primarily for osteoporosis (96.3%) and were mainly female (79.9%). The cancer-related conditions were primarily bone metastases and myeloma. On average the median age was 69.4 years (range: 20–99). On average the mean and median sCTX were 133.4 pg/mL and 122.4 pg/mL respectively with four missing data. Among them, 113 experienced MRONJ. The results of weighted average of mean and median sCTX according to the route of administration and bisphosphonate indication are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Weighted average of mean and median sCTX according to route of administration and bisphosphonate indication.

N total = 1190 ^*	N (%)	sCTX (Weighted average of mean), pg/mL	sCTX (Weighted average of median), pg/mL
Oral bisphosphonates	1170 (98.3%)	122.0	120.6
Intravenous bisphosphonates	20 (1.7%)	261.7	224.0
Osteoporosis indication^**	1170 (98.3%)	122.0	120.6
Cancer indication^**	20 (1.7%)	261.7	224.0

Open in a new tab

*Data were unavailable for 74 patients.

**Among the 1190 patients with available data, oral bisphosphonates were always prescribed to osteoporotic individuals, whereas intravenous bisphosphonates were exclusively administered to those with cancer-related conditions.

Data regarding the specific types of molecules used and their dosages were only available in 3 studies (n = 180 patients). The most commonly used bisphosphonates were alendronate (65.0%) and risedronate (17.8%), with dosages consistent with approved indications [22,29,30].

Meta-analysis

The first meta-analysis was conducted within the entire population of patients with MRONJ, including both cancer-related and osteoporotic patients (n = 113). The sCTX levels for the 95^th, 97.5^th, and 99^th percentiles were 338.0 pg/mL [95%CI: 190,3; 485,7], 401.9 pg/mL [95%CI: 191,3; 612,6], and 458.0 pg/mL [95%CI: 190,4; 725,6], respectively (Fig 2), suggesting that among the entire population of patients treated with bisphosphonates and who developed MRONJ after oral surgery, only 1% had an sCTX level exceeding 458 pg/mL. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was significant (I²= 100%).

The second meta-analysis was conducted within the population with individual data available (n = 58) and was restricted to the population of patients treated with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis who developed MRONJ (n = 38). The sCTX levels for the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles were 185.3 pg/mL [95%CI: 131,3; 239,3], 187.4 pg/mL [95%CI: 133,9; 240,8] and 188.6 pg/mL [95%CI: 135,4; 241,9], respectively (Fig 3). The heterogeneity among the 4 studies was significant (I²= 98%).

Analysis of individual data

sCTX Distribution in the population with available individual data.

Individual data were available for 58 patients with MRONJ after oral surgery. Their mean ± standard deviation and median (IQR) sCTX level were 157.7 ± 173.8 pg/mL and 116.0 pg/mL (70.0–192.0). The sCTX 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles were 393.0 pg/mL 481.0 pg/mL and 803.0 pg/mL respectively.

The distribution of sCTX values is illustrated in Fig 4a and did not follow a normal distribution (p-value <0.001). The number of patients with sCTX values exceeding 150, 200, 300, and 400 pg/mL was 19, 13, 4, and 3, respectively.

We performed a subgroup analysis based on the indication: osteoporosis (n = 38) and cancer-related indications (n = 20). sCTX values according to the bisphosphonate indication are summarized in Table 2, and their distribution is illustrated in Fig 4b and 4c.

Table 2. sCTX values among patients treated with bisphosphonates who developed MRONJ after oral surgery, with individual data available.

sCTX values (pg/mL)	n	mean ± standard deviation	median (IQR)	95^th percentile	97.5^th percentile	99^th percentiles
Total	58	157.7 ± 173.8	116.0 (70.0-192.0)	393.0	481.0	803.0
Osteoporosis indication	38	102.9 ± 60.6	98.0 (63.0-132.0)	202.0	257.0	260.0
Cancer indication	20	261.8 ± 257.1	224.0 (115.0-265.0)	526.0	873.0	1081.0

Open in a new tab

In the group of patients treated for osteoporosis, the 99th percentile of sCTX was 260.0 pg/mL, with 7, 2, 0, and 0 patients having sCTX values exceeding 150, 200, 300, and 400 pg/mL, respectively. In contrast, among patients treated for cancer, the numbers were 12, 11, 4, and 3, respectively.

Discussion

Our meta-analysis aimed at determining an sCTX threshold above which the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw after oral surgery in patients treated with bisphosphonates was negligible, provides three key findings. Firstly, the situation varies significantly depending on the indication for which bisphosphonates are prescribed. In osteoporosis, the estimated incidence of MRONJ following tooth extraction is 0.15%, while in cancer-related conditions, it ranges between 1.6% and 14.8% [14,35–38]. Our findings indicate that in cases of cancer, sCTX levels are not reliable biomarkers for predicting MRONJ. The 99^th percentile of sCTX was found to be at 1081 pg/mL, with a distribution revealing levels of sCTX exceeding 1200 pg/mL, also observed in other samples [31]. These data confirm that the use of sCTX for predictive purposes of MRONJ in patients treated with bisphosphonate for cancer is not warranted [14]. Indeed, in this oncological context, sCTX levels not only reflect the action of bisphosphonates but, more importantly, also reflect the disease activity.

They have been shown to be effective markers of the progression of bone metastases or myelomatous involvement [39].

The second key finding is that conversely sCTX may be an appealing safety biomarker for predicting a low risk of MRONJ in patients treated with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. We utilized two methods to determine the 99^th percentile of sCTX in this population, meta-analysis and individual patient data analysis. In the meta-analysis, the 99th percentile was calculated within each study, followed by a weighted average of these results. For individual patient data, all sCTX values from all studies were pooled, sorted in ascending order, and the 99th percentile was calculated from this distribution of data, without considering methodological differences across studies. The thresholds determined by these two methods were 188 and 260 pg/mL, respectively. Therefore, adopting the most conservative approach, we can consider that when sCTX levels are beyond 260 pg/mL, the risk is very low. This threshold is supported by the descriptive analysis of individual patient data, where only 2 osteoporotic patients who experienced MRONJ had sCTX levels exceeding 200 pg/mL, and none had levels beyond 300 pg/mL.

The third key point is that, regardless of the indication for bisphosphonate use, the historically proposed sCTX threshold of 150 pg/mL is not adequate for assessing a low risk of MRONJ [24]. Our results are consistent with those of previous meta-analyses [40–44]. In these meta-analyses, the sensitivity and specificity of the 150 threshold did not exceed 57% and 77%, respectively [41,43].

In our population of patients who experienced MRONJ after oral surgery, on average the median and mean levels of sCTX were 122.4 and 133.4 pg/mL, respectively, confirming that a threshold of 150 pg/mL would hardly discriminate between patients.

The strength of this study lies in its use of an original method of percentile meta-analysis to determine the sCTX threshold associated with the lowest risk of MRONJ. But this approach also introduces certain limitations. To our knowledge, no validated method of percentile meta-analysis exists. For this purpose, we derived percentiles from the mean or standard deviation assuming a normal distribution and calculated their standard deviation using the bootstrap method based on individual sCTX data. However, the Shapiro-Wilk test revealed a non-normal distribution of the individual sCTX data. This accounts for the significant variation in sCTX values observed among the 95^th (sCTX = 393 pg/mL), 97.5^th (sCTX = 481 pg/mL), and 99^th percentiles (sCTX = 803 pg/mL). This variability was primarily attributed to an extreme and possibly aberrant value, which may also be a source of error.

Our percentile meta-analysis was conducted akin to a mean meta-analysis, with standard deviation calculation of the percentile derived from individual-level data, yielding simulated data which is not perfectly reliable. Nevertheless, this method enabled the computation of sCTX safety thresholds despite the limited data available in the literature and the results of the percentile meta-analyses were compared with individual data analyses. Whether it was the meta-analysis or descriptive analysis, the results were consistent.

The findings from the individual data analysis require careful interpretation. These data were pooled from studies employing varying methodologies, such as differing inclusion criteria, sCTX collection times, and assay techniques. CTX levels may not have been consistently measured at the same time, which could introduce variability due to the circadian rhythm’s influence on sampling. Even if it is recommended that blood samples should be taken in the morning, none of the studies reported the timing of sampling or whether the patients were fasting. There was also a lack of standardization in the methodologies used across different laboratories [45–48].

Additionally, variations were noted in the timing of sCTX measurements, with some taken preoperatively and others at the time of BRONJ diagnosis.

Another limitation arises from the fact that we did not conduct heterogeneity analysis due to the low number of studies, small sample sizes, and potential sources of error in the calculations mentioned above.

Meta-analysis is a powerful tool for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, providing increased statistical power, but it is constrained by the quality and heterogeneity of the included studies. Therefore, we conducted individual data analyses when possible, as this approach provides more granular, tailored insights with direct control over the data. Meta-analysis is a powerful tool for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, providing increased statistical power, but it is constrained by the quality and heterogeneity of the included studies. Therefore, we conducted individual data analyses when possible, as this approach provides more granular, tailored insights with direct control over the data.

Taking these limitations into account, our results suggest that in patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, an sCTX threshold above 260 pg/mL regardless of the assay method used or the time of sampling, is associated with minimal risk of MRONJ after oral surgery. This threshold could also guide potential treatment holiday prior to surgical intervention [49,50]. The various studies included in the meta-analysis reported little to no information on known established risk factors, such as smoking or oral hygiene, suggesting that the determined threshold would be relevant regardless of these risk factors [19,51]. These results need to be confirmed particularly with sCTX data from a population of control patients.

Our data also suggest that sCTX is not a reliable biomarker for identifying this risk in patients treated with bisphosphonates for cancer-related conditions. The risk is significant, regardless of the sCTX level. Although cancer is a well-known risk factor for MRONJ, prior to our work, the various reviews that sought to determine an sCTX threshold and considered it an unreliable turnover marker for predicting MRONJ did not differentiate between treatment indications or routes of administration in setting the threshold. While we confirm, in line with previous reviews, that sCTX is not a reliable marker for predicting MRONJ in cancer-related conditions, our results indicate that it may serve as a weak marker in osteoporosis.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Characteristics of the 7 included studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s001.docx^{(17.4KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for cohort studies (Table 2a) and case control studies (Table 2b) applied to the studies included in the meta-analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s002.docx^{(21.1KB, docx)}

S1 File. Electronic search strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s003.docx^{(13.7KB, docx)}

S2 File. Table of all data extracted translated version.

(XLSX)

pone.0318260.s004.xlsx^{(29.8KB, xlsx)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Kanis JA, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, Veronese N, Lorentzon M, et al. Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2020;31(1):1–12. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05176-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY; on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30(1):3–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS, Adachi JD, Pieper CF, Mautalen C, et al. Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1799–809. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa074941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.New IOF-ESCEO position paper offers practical guidance for osteoporosis management | International Osteoporosis Foundation [Internet]. [cité 25 avr 2024]. Disponible sur: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/news/new-iof-esceo-position-paper-offers-practical-guidance-osteoporosis-management-20191120-1624 [Google Scholar]
5.van der Velde RY, Bours SPG, Wyers CE, Lems WF, Geusens PPMM, van den Bergh JPW. Effect of implementation of guidelines on assessment and diagnosis of vertebral fractures in patients older than 50 years with a recent non-vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(10):3017–22. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4147-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Sing C-W, Lin T-C, Bartholomew S, Bell JS, Bennett C, Beyene K, et al. Global Epidemiology of Hip Fractures: Secular Trends in Incidence Rate, Post-Fracture Treatment, and All-Cause Mortality. J Bone Miner Res. 2023;38(8):1064–75. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Jha S, Wang Z, Laucis N, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in Media Reports, Oral Bisphosphonate Prescriptions, and Hip Fractures 1996-2012: An Ecological Analysis. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(12):2179–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Lewiecki E, Wright NC, Curtis JR, Siris E, Gagel RF, Saag KG, et al. Hip fracture trends in the United States, 2002 to 2015. Osteoporos Int. 2018; 29(3):717–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Jha S, Wang Z, Laucis N, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in Media Reports, Oral Bisphosphonate Prescriptions, and Hip Fractures 1996-2012: An Ecological Analysis. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(12):2179–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Peeters G, Tett SE, Duncan EL, Mishra GD, Dobson AJ. Osteoporosis medication dispensing for older Australian women from 2002 to 2010: influences of publications, guidelines, marketing activities and policy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(12):1303–11. doi: 10.1002/pds.3703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Khan AA, Sándor GKB, Dore E, Morrison AD, Alsahli M, Amin F, et al. Bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(3):478–90. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Malden N, Lopes V. An epidemiological study of alendronate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. A case series from the south-east of Scotland with attention given to case definition and prevalence. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30(2):171–82. doi: 10.1007/s00774-011-0299-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Hansen PJ, Knitschke M, Draenert FG, Irle S, Neff A. Incidence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) in patients taking bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment - a grossly underestimated risk? Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(8):1829–37. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0873-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Ruggiero SL, Dodson TB, Aghaloo T, Carlson ER, Ward BB, Kademani D. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons’ Position Paper on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws-2022 Update. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80(5):920–43. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Aghaloo TL, Felsenfeld AL, Tetradis S. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in a patient on Denosumab. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(5):959–63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Aghaloo TL, Tetradis S. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in the Absence of Antiresorptive or Antiangiogenic Exposure: A Series of 6 Cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(1):129–42. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Baur DA, Weber JM, Collette DC, Dhaliwal H, Quereshy F. Osteonecrosis of the jaws unrelated to bisphosphonate exposure: a series of 4 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(12):2802–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Khan AA, Rios LP, Sándor GKB, Khan N, Peters E, Rahman MO, et al. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw in Ontario: a survey of oral and maxillofacial surgeons. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(7):1396–402. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.100221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Kuroshima S, Sasaki M, Sawase T. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A literature review. J Oral Biosci. 2019;61(2):99–104. doi: 10.1016/j.job.2019.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Peisker A, Raschke GF, Fahmy MD, Guentsch A, Roshanghias K, König KC, et al. Cross-Sectional Study of four Serological Bone Turnover Markers for the Risk Assessment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):e137. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Moraschini V, de Almeida DCF, Figueredo CM, Calasans-Maia MD. Association between biomarkers and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;127(6):504–15. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Lazarovici TS, Mesilaty-Gross S, Vered I, Pariente C, Kanety H, Givol N, et al. Serologic bone markers for predicting development of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients receiving bisphosphonates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(9):2241–7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Thumbigere-Math V, Michalowicz BS, Hughes PJ, Basi DL, Tsai ML, Swenson KK, et al. Serum Markers of Bone Turnover and Angiogenesis in Bisphosphonate-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Patients Following Discontinuation of Long-term Intravenous Bisphosphonate Therapy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):738–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Marx RE, Cillo JE, Ulloa JJ. Oral bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis: risk factors, prediction of risk using serum CTX testing, prevention, and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(12):2397–410. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, the PRISMA-DTA Group, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Disponible sur: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Google Scholar]
27.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3‑4):591–611. [Google Scholar]
29.Kwon Y-D, Kim D-Y, Ohe J-Y, Yoo J-Y, Walter C. Correlation between serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen and staging of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(12):2644–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Kwon Y-D, Ohe J-Y, Kim D-Y, Chung D-J, Park Y-D. Retrospective study of two biochemical markers for the risk assessment of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: can they be utilized as risk markers?: Two biochemical markers for the risk assessment of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(1):100–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01965.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Atalay B, Yalcin S, Emes Y, Aktas I, Aybar B, Issever H, et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis: laser-assisted surgical treatment or conventional surgery? Lasers Med Sci. 2011;26(6):815–23. doi: 10.1007/s10103-011-0974-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Kwon Y-D, Lee D-W, Choi B-J, Lee J-W, Kim D-Y. Short-term teriparatide therapy as an adjunctive modality for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(11):2721–5. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1882-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Hutcheson A, Cheng A, Kunchar R, Stein B, Sambrook P, Goss A. A C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide test-based protocol for patients on oral bisphosphonates requiring extraction: a prospective single-center controlled study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(8):1456–62. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.02.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Kim DW, Kim H, Nam W, Kim HJ, Cha I-H. Machine learning to predict the occurrence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with dental extraction: A preliminary report. Bone. 2018;116:207–14. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.04.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Shudo A, Kishimoto H, Takaoka K, Noguchi K. Long-term oral bisphosphonates delay healing after tooth extraction: a single institutional prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(10):2315–21. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4621-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Gaudin E, Seidel L, Bacevic M, Rompen E, Lambert F. Occurrence and risk indicators of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015; 42(10):922–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Mozzati M, Arata V, Gallesio G. Tooth extraction in patients on zoledronic acid therapy. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(9):817–21. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Yamazaki T, Yamori M, Ishizaki T, Asai K, Goto K, Takahashi K, et al. Increased incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw after tooth extraction in patients treated with bisphosphonates: a cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(11):1397–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Schini M, Vilaca T, Gossiel F, Salam S, Eastell R. Bone Turnover Markers: Basic Biology to Clinical Applications. Endocr Rev. 2022;44(3):417–73. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnac031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Friedlander AH, Chang TI, Hazboun RC, Garrett NR. High C-Terminal Cross-Linking Telopeptide Levels Are Associated With a Minimal Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Patients Taking Oral Bisphosphonates and Having Exodontia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(9):1735–40. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Awad ME, Sun C, Jernigan J, Elsalanty M. Serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide level as a predictive biomarker of osteonecrosis after dentoalveolar surgery in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019;150(8):664–75.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Enciso R, Keaton J, Saleh N, Ahmadieh A, Clark GT, Sedghizadeh PP. Assessing the utility of serum C-telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen as a predictor of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(7):551–60.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Traboulsi-Garet B, Jorba-García A, Camps-Font O, Alves FA, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Is serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen a reliable parameter for predicting the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(3):2371–82. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04383-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Salgueiro M, Stribos M, Zhang LF, Stevens M, Awad ME, Elsalanty M. Value of pre-operative CTX serum levels in the prediction of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): a retrospective clinical study. EPMA J. 2019;10(1):21–9. doi: 10.1007/s13167-019-0160-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Jørgensen NR, Møllehave LT, Hansen YBL, Quardon N, Lylloff L, Linneberg A. Comparison of two automated assays of BTM (CTX and P1NP) and reference intervals in a Danish population. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(7):2103–13. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4026-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Wheater G, Goodrum C, Tuck SP, Datta HK, van Laar JM. Method-specific differences in β-isomerised carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen and procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide using two fully automated immunoassays. Clin Chem Lab Med CCLM. 2014; 52(7):e135–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Bhattoa HP, Cavalier E, Eastell R, Heijboer AC, Jørgensen NR, Makris K, et al. Analytical considerations and plans to standardize or harmonize assays for the reference bone turnover markers PINP and β-CTX in blood. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;515:16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.12.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Chubb SAP, Mandelt CD, Vasikaran SD. Comparison of results from commercial assays for plasma CTX: The need for harmonization. Clin Biochem. 2015;48(7):519–24. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Hasegawa T, Kawakita A, Ueda N, Funahara R, Tachibana A, Kobayashi M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of the risk factors associated with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after tooth extraction in patients receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy: can primary wound closure and a drug holiday really prevent MRONJ?. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(8):2465–73. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4063-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Fantasia JE. Bisphosphonates—What the Dentist Needs to Know: Practical Considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(5, Supplement):53–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Tsao C, Darby I, Ebeling PR, Walsh K, O’Brien-Simpson N, Reynolds E, et al. Oral health risk factors for bisphosphonate-associated jaw osteonecrosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(8):1360–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2025 May 5;20(5):e0318260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0

9 Jun 2024

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r002

Decision Letter 0

Sian Yik Lim

5 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-22980Identifying a Safety Threshold of Serum C-terminal telopeptide to Prevent Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the JawPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

It is an interesting manuscript, please review comments and modify manuscript as appropriate. Thank you.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sian Yik Lim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please identify your study as "systematic review and meta-analysis" in the title of your manuscript.

3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file "Supplementary table 1 and 2". Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an interesting study that tries to study the threshold of serum C-terminal telopeptide that predicts low risks of jaw osteonecrosis in patients receiving bisphosphonates. The authors reviewed the literature identified studies to investigate this interesting clinical topic, and pooled the cases. The results show that patients who are on oral bisphosphonates developed MR ONJ and had a 95-99 percentile range of serum CTX of 185-188. Individual data analysis showed 95 to 99% as 202-260. Based on their study, they recommend a threshold of 260 pg./mL for determining the low risk of developing MRONJ while on oral bisphosphonate treatment.

It is an interesting article but recommend that the authors address the following:

1. Did the authors assess for other risk factors that may affect serum CTX levels and the occurrence of MRONJ, such as comorbidities and length of bisphosphonate use?

2. Can the authors describe more about how they derived the patients included in the analysis of individual data, what cases were excluded and included, and whether it was 58 or 38 cases? It is confusing to read on page 11, paragraph 12, that Individual data were available for 58 patients with MRONJ after oral surgery, but then in the caption for figure 4, just below that paragraph, n=38.

3. In the discussion, an the authors discuss the possibility of other biomarkers that could be predictive of MR ONJ besides serum CTX, which is the reason why serum CTX is being particularly studied?

4. Can the authors include citations that serum CTX measurement may not be reliable and can be variable depending on the time of day the sample was obtained and how it was measured?

5. While 260 is a relatively reasonable number based on this study, due to various limitations, such as the large variability of the studies and the possibility of bias, I think the authors should acknowledge the limitations more, especially in regard to the variability of assays, measurement, etc. More studies are needed to determine if 260 is an appropriate threshold.

6. For the results in table 1, why do the authors think IV bisphosphonates have a higher level of weighted average mean of CTX than oral bisphosphonates. Theoretically it should be the other way around. Was IV mainly used in cancer patients?

7. Can the authors put their findings in the context of recent review that states that we do not have reliable boneturnover markers to predict risk of MRONJ

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2023.09.001Get rights and content

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your diligent efforts in identifying a predictive marker for MRONJ. The article is highly engaging and informative. However, I have some concerns as outlined below:

Title

Since the "safety threshold" was not directly established in this study, referring to the "predictive sCTX level" would be more appropriate.

The short title is quite general and lacks specific information. It would be beneficial to make it more informative to better convey the study's focus.

Abstract

Result:

- “Among those treated with oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis (n = 58),……”

The data from Table 2 shows the number of MRONJ patients having bisphosphonate for osteoporosis is 38, not 58, is this number correct?

Conclusion:

- This study did not provide sCTX levels for patients who did not develop MRONJ, making it impossible to establish the proposed sCTX level as a definitive threshold. Without this comparison, it remains unclear whether patients who have sCTX levels higher than the proposed threshold will not develop MRONJ.

Main text

Introduction:

To enhance the article's impact, it is crucial to add more issues of MRONJ.

Result:

Study and Patients Characteristics:

- “The 1264 patients analyzed had all undergone oral surgery. They were treated with bisphosphonates, primarily for osteoporosis (96.3%)”

Is this data from the same analysis as those in Table 1?

- “Table 1. Weighted average of mean and median sCTX according to route of administration and bisphosphonate indication of the patients with a MRONJ following oral surgery.”

I noticed that your article states the number of patients who developed MRONJ following oral surgery was 113, not 1,190. Please verify the accuracy of the data in this table and ensure clarity.

- To make the data more informative, the mean and median sCTX levels for MRONJ and non-MRONJ patients should be reported separately rather than as an overall combined level.

Discussion:

- To make your discussion more compelling, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis and individual data analysis. This will demonstrate why the sCTX level from individual data analysis was proposed as the threshold level.

- The summary stating “our results suggest that in patients treated with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, a sCTX threshold above 260 pg/mL is associated with minimal risk of MRONJ following oral surgery” cannot be conclusively drawn. This is because the sCTX levels of patients who did not develop MRONJ after oral surgery were not investigated. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether the sCTX levels of non-MRONJ patients are higher or lower than the proposed threshold.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes: Keskanya Subbalekha.

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 May 5;20(5):e0318260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0

24 Oct 2024

Dear Editor,

The responses to the reviewers' questions and comments have been uploaded in the document titled "Response to Reviewers"

Kind regards,

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2024 1020 Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0318260.s006.docx^{(27.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r004

Decision Letter 1

Sian Yik Lim

19 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-22980R1Identifying a Threshold of Serum C-terminal telopeptide with a low risk of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw secondary to oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

Please submit your revised manuscript by DATE_REVISION_DUE%. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sian Yik Lim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,Thank you very much for your efforts; your responses have clarified my queries. I do still have a concern regarding the title, though, and would appreciate your input.

Title: Please consider the right word according to your study

The meanings of "threshold" and "predictive level" are different. "Threshold" implies a cut-off point, often associated with safety or effectiveness. For instance, in a clinical setting, a "threshold" typically means a specific value above or below which an intervention is indicated or a condition is considered more manageable. "Predictive level" refers to a marker that indicates the likelihood or probability of a certain outcome, without necessarily implying safety.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes: Assoc.Prof.Dr. Keskanya Subbalekha

**********

PLoS One. 2025 May 5;20(5):e0318260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1

3 Jan 2025

We thank the reviewer #1 for this comment

We have change the title with “predictive levels” instead of “threshold”

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r006

Decision Letter 2

Sian Yik Lim

14 Jan 2025

Identifying a Predictive Level of Serum C-terminal telopeptide Associated with a low risk of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw secondary to oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-22980R2

Dear Dr. Pham,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sian Yik Lim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318260.r007

Acceptance letter

Sian Yik Lim

PONE-D-24-22980R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pham,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sian Yik Lim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Characteristics of the 7 included studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s001.docx^{(17.4KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for cohort studies (Table 2a) and case control studies (Table 2b) applied to the studies included in the meta-analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s002.docx^{(21.1KB, docx)}

S1 File. Electronic search strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0318260.s003.docx^{(13.7KB, docx)}

S2 File. Table of all data extracted translated version.

(XLSX)

pone.0318260.s004.xlsx^{(29.8KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2024 1020 Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0318260.s006.docx^{(27.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0318260.ref001] 1.Kanis JA, Harvey NC, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, Veronese N, Lorentzon M, et al. Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2020;31(1):1–12. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05176-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref002] 2.Kanis JA, Cooper C, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY; on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF). European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2019; 30(1):3–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref003] 3.Lyles KW, Colón-Emeric CS, Magaziner JS, Adachi JD, Pieper CF, Mautalen C, et al. Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1799–809. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa074941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref004] 4.New IOF-ESCEO position paper offers practical guidance for osteoporosis management | International Osteoporosis Foundation [Internet]. [cité 25 avr 2024]. Disponible sur: https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/news/new-iof-esceo-position-paper-offers-practical-guidance-osteoporosis-management-20191120-1624 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref005] 5.van der Velde RY, Bours SPG, Wyers CE, Lems WF, Geusens PPMM, van den Bergh JPW. Effect of implementation of guidelines on assessment and diagnosis of vertebral fractures in patients older than 50 years with a recent non-vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(10):3017–22. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4147-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref006] 6.Sing C-W, Lin T-C, Bartholomew S, Bell JS, Bennett C, Beyene K, et al. Global Epidemiology of Hip Fractures: Secular Trends in Incidence Rate, Post-Fracture Treatment, and All-Cause Mortality. J Bone Miner Res. 2023;38(8):1064–75. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref007] 7.Jha S, Wang Z, Laucis N, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in Media Reports, Oral Bisphosphonate Prescriptions, and Hip Fractures 1996-2012: An Ecological Analysis. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(12):2179–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref008] 8.Lewiecki E, Wright NC, Curtis JR, Siris E, Gagel RF, Saag KG, et al. Hip fracture trends in the United States, 2002 to 2015. Osteoporos Int. 2018; 29(3):717–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref009] 9.Jha S, Wang Z, Laucis N, Bhattacharyya T. Trends in Media Reports, Oral Bisphosphonate Prescriptions, and Hip Fractures 1996-2012: An Ecological Analysis. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 2015;30(12):2179–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref010] 10.Peeters G, Tett SE, Duncan EL, Mishra GD, Dobson AJ. Osteoporosis medication dispensing for older Australian women from 2002 to 2010: influences of publications, guidelines, marketing activities and policy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(12):1303–11. doi: 10.1002/pds.3703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref011] 11.Khan AA, Sándor GKB, Dore E, Morrison AD, Alsahli M, Amin F, et al. Bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(3):478–90. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref012] 12.Malden N, Lopes V. An epidemiological study of alendronate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. A case series from the south-east of Scotland with attention given to case definition and prevalence. J Bone Miner Metab. 2012;30(2):171–82. doi: 10.1007/s00774-011-0299-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref013] 13.Hansen PJ, Knitschke M, Draenert FG, Irle S, Neff A. Incidence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) in patients taking bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment - a grossly underestimated risk? Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(8):1829–37. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0873-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref014] 14.Ruggiero SL, Dodson TB, Aghaloo T, Carlson ER, Ward BB, Kademani D. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons’ Position Paper on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws-2022 Update. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80(5):920–43. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref015] 15.Aghaloo TL, Felsenfeld AL, Tetradis S. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in a patient on Denosumab. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(5):959–63. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref016] 16.Aghaloo TL, Tetradis S. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw in the Absence of Antiresorptive or Antiangiogenic Exposure: A Series of 6 Cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(1):129–42. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.07.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref017] 17.Baur DA, Weber JM, Collette DC, Dhaliwal H, Quereshy F. Osteonecrosis of the jaws unrelated to bisphosphonate exposure: a series of 4 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(12):2802–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.02.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref018] 18.Khan AA, Rios LP, Sándor GKB, Khan N, Peters E, Rahman MO, et al. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw in Ontario: a survey of oral and maxillofacial surgeons. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(7):1396–402. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.100221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref019] 19.Kuroshima S, Sasaki M, Sawase T. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A literature review. J Oral Biosci. 2019;61(2):99–104. doi: 10.1016/j.job.2019.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref020] 20.Peisker A, Raschke GF, Fahmy MD, Guentsch A, Roshanghias K, König KC, et al. Cross-Sectional Study of four Serological Bone Turnover Markers for the Risk Assessment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):e137. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref021] 21.Moraschini V, de Almeida DCF, Figueredo CM, Calasans-Maia MD. Association between biomarkers and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: a systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;127(6):504–15. doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref022] 22.Lazarovici TS, Mesilaty-Gross S, Vered I, Pariente C, Kanety H, Givol N, et al. Serologic bone markers for predicting development of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients receiving bisphosphonates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(9):2241–7. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref023] 23.Thumbigere-Math V, Michalowicz BS, Hughes PJ, Basi DL, Tsai ML, Swenson KK, et al. Serum Markers of Bone Turnover and Angiogenesis in Bisphosphonate-related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Patients Following Discontinuation of Long-term Intravenous Bisphosphonate Therapy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):738–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref024] 24.Marx RE, Cillo JE, Ulloa JJ. Oral bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis: risk factors, prediction of risk using serum CTX testing, prevention, and treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(12):2397–410. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref025] 25.McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, the PRISMA-DTA Group, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388–96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref026] 26.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Disponible sur: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref027] 27.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref028] 28.Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3‑4):591–611. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref029] 29.Kwon Y-D, Kim D-Y, Ohe J-Y, Yoo J-Y, Walter C. Correlation between serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen and staging of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(12):2644–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref030] 30.Kwon Y-D, Ohe J-Y, Kim D-Y, Chung D-J, Park Y-D. Retrospective study of two biochemical markers for the risk assessment of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws: can they be utilized as risk markers?: Two biochemical markers for the risk assessment of oral bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(1):100–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01965.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref031] 31.Atalay B, Yalcin S, Emes Y, Aktas I, Aybar B, Issever H, et al. Bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis: laser-assisted surgical treatment or conventional surgery? Lasers Med Sci. 2011;26(6):815–23. doi: 10.1007/s10103-011-0974-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref032] 32.Kwon Y-D, Lee D-W, Choi B-J, Lee J-W, Kim D-Y. Short-term teriparatide therapy as an adjunctive modality for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(11):2721–5. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1882-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref033] 33.Hutcheson A, Cheng A, Kunchar R, Stein B, Sambrook P, Goss A. A C-terminal crosslinking telopeptide test-based protocol for patients on oral bisphosphonates requiring extraction: a prospective single-center controlled study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(8):1456–62. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.02.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref034] 34.Kim DW, Kim H, Nam W, Kim HJ, Cha I-H. Machine learning to predict the occurrence of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with dental extraction: A preliminary report. Bone. 2018;116:207–14. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.04.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref035] 35.Shudo A, Kishimoto H, Takaoka K, Noguchi K. Long-term oral bisphosphonates delay healing after tooth extraction: a single institutional prospective study. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(10):2315–21. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-4621-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref036] 36.Gaudin E, Seidel L, Bacevic M, Rompen E, Lambert F. Occurrence and risk indicators of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after dental extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015; 42(10):922–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref037] 37.Mozzati M, Arata V, Gallesio G. Tooth extraction in patients on zoledronic acid therapy. Oral Oncol. 2012;48(9):817–21. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2012.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref038] 38.Yamazaki T, Yamori M, Ishizaki T, Asai K, Goto K, Takahashi K, et al. Increased incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw after tooth extraction in patients treated with bisphosphonates: a cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(11):1397–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref039] 39.Schini M, Vilaca T, Gossiel F, Salam S, Eastell R. Bone Turnover Markers: Basic Biology to Clinical Applications. Endocr Rev. 2022;44(3):417–73. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnac031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref040] 40.Friedlander AH, Chang TI, Hazboun RC, Garrett NR. High C-Terminal Cross-Linking Telopeptide Levels Are Associated With a Minimal Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Patients Taking Oral Bisphosphonates and Having Exodontia. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73(9):1735–40. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2015.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref041] 41.Awad ME, Sun C, Jernigan J, Elsalanty M. Serum C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide level as a predictive biomarker of osteonecrosis after dentoalveolar surgery in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2019;150(8):664–75.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref042] 42.Enciso R, Keaton J, Saleh N, Ahmadieh A, Clark GT, Sedghizadeh PP. Assessing the utility of serum C-telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen as a predictor of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(7):551–60.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2016.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref043] 43.Traboulsi-Garet B, Jorba-García A, Camps-Font O, Alves FA, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E. Is serum C-terminal telopeptide cross-link of type 1 collagen a reliable parameter for predicting the risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws? A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(3):2371–82. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04383-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref044] 44.Salgueiro M, Stribos M, Zhang LF, Stevens M, Awad ME, Elsalanty M. Value of pre-operative CTX serum levels in the prediction of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ): a retrospective clinical study. EPMA J. 2019;10(1):21–9. doi: 10.1007/s13167-019-0160-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref045] 45.Jørgensen NR, Møllehave LT, Hansen YBL, Quardon N, Lylloff L, Linneberg A. Comparison of two automated assays of BTM (CTX and P1NP) and reference intervals in a Danish population. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(7):2103–13. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4026-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref046] 46.Wheater G, Goodrum C, Tuck SP, Datta HK, van Laar JM. Method-specific differences in β-isomerised carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen and procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide using two fully automated immunoassays. Clin Chem Lab Med CCLM. 2014; 52(7):e135–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref047] 47.Bhattoa HP, Cavalier E, Eastell R, Heijboer AC, Jørgensen NR, Makris K, et al. Analytical considerations and plans to standardize or harmonize assays for the reference bone turnover markers PINP and β-CTX in blood. Clin Chim Acta. 2020;515:16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.12.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref048] 48.Chubb SAP, Mandelt CD, Vasikaran SD. Comparison of results from commercial assays for plasma CTX: The need for harmonization. Clin Biochem. 2015;48(7):519–24. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref049] 49.Hasegawa T, Kawakita A, Ueda N, Funahara R, Tachibana A, Kobayashi M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of the risk factors associated with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw after tooth extraction in patients receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy: can primary wound closure and a drug holiday really prevent MRONJ?. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(8):2465–73. doi: 10.1007/s00198-017-4063-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref050] 50.Fantasia JE. Bisphosphonates—What the Dentist Needs to Know: Practical Considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(5, Supplement):53–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0318260.ref051] 51.Tsao C, Darby I, Ebeling PR, Walsh K, O’Brien-Simpson N, Reynolds E, et al. Oral health risk factors for bisphosphonate-associated jaw osteonecrosis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71(8):1360–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Identifying a predictive level of serum C-terminal telopeptide associated with a low risk of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw secondary to oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Camille Ghio

Robinson Gravier-Dumonceau

Pierre Lafforgue

Roch Giorgi

Thao Pham

Roles

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Methods

Protocol and registration

Study selection criteria

Information sources, literature search, and study selection

Data collection

Risk of bias assessment

Synthesis of results and meta-analysis

Results

Search results and study selection

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Study and patients characteristics

Table 1. Weighted average of mean and median sCTX according to route of administration and bisphosphonate indication.

Meta-analysis

Fig 2. Meta-analysis of the 95th, 97.5th and 99th percentiles of all the included patients with MRONJ.

Fig 3. Meta-analysis of the 95th, 97.5th and 99th percentiles of the patients with MRONL treated for osteoporosis.

Analysis of individual data

sCTX Distribution in the population with available individual data.

Fig 4. Bar chart of sCTX levels of all individual values within a) the entire population with MRONJ (n = 58), b) patients treated for osteoporosis (n = 38), c) patients treated for cancer-related conditions (n = 20).

Table 2. sCTX values among patients treated with bisphosphonates who developed MRONJ after oral surgery, with individual data available.

Discussion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 0

Sian Yik Lim

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Sian Yik Lim

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Sian Yik Lim

Roles

Acceptance letter

Sian Yik Lim

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Fig 2. Meta-analysis of the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles of all the included patients with MRONJ.

Fig 3. Meta-analysis of the 95^th, 97.5^th and 99^th percentiles of the patients with MRONL treated for osteoporosis.