4.1 Article

American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons' Position Paper on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws-2022 Update

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 920-943

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2022.02.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the changes and revisions in the management strategies for patients with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ). The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) updated their position papers based on the research and experience of committee members and highlighted the current research progress.
Strategies for management of patients with, or at risk for, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ) - formerly referred to as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ)-were set forth in the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) position papers in 2007, 2009 and 2014. The position papers were developed by a committee appointed by the AAOMS Board of Trustees and comprising clinicians with extensive experience in caring for these patients, as well as clinical and basic science researchers. The knowledge base and experience in addressing MRONJ continues to evolve and expand, necessitating modifications and refinements to the previous position papers. Three members of the AAOMS Committee on Oral, Head, and Neck Oncologic and Reconstructive Surgery (COH-NORS) and three authors of the 2014 position paper were appointed to serve as a working group to analyze the current literature and revise the guidance as indicated to reflect current knowledge in this field. This update contains revisions to diagnosis and management strategies and highlights the current research status. AAOMS maintains that it is vitally important for this information to be disseminated to other relevant healthcare professionals and organizations. (C) 2022 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据