Mao Fushimi1, Yumiko Ohbayashi1, Fumi Nakai1, Takashi Norikane2, Yuka Yamamoto2, Yoshihiro Nishiyama2, Minoru Miyake3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-cho, Kita-gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan. miyake.minoru@kagawa-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether both zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab (Dmab) equally suppress bone remodeling of the normal mandible, and the secondary purpose was to determine the influence of ZA and Dmab on other normal bones. METHODS: 18F-sodium fluoride-positron-emission-tomography (18F-NaF-PET) was used to perform quantitative analysis of the bone metabolism in various parts. The end points of the study were the mean standardized uptake value (SUV) of each member of the ZA group (n = 9), the Dmab group (n = 16), and the Control group (n = 23). RESULTS: The SUV at the thoracic vertebrae in the ZA group were significantly lower than those of the Dmab and Control group (p < 0.05) In addition, the mean SUVs of the cervical vertebrae in the ZA group were significantly lower than those in the Control group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among ZA, Dmab and Control group in the other sites. There was no significant difference between the Dmab and Control groups at all sites. CONCLUSIONS: The remodeling of mandible was not suppressed due to the treatment with anti-resorptive agents. Differences in the mechanisms of action between the BP and Dmab caused the specificity of the effect on the metabolism of normal bone.
OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether both zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab (Dmab) equally suppress bone remodeling of the normal mandible, and the secondary purpose was to determine the influence of ZA and Dmab on other normal bones. METHODS: 18F-sodium fluoride-positron-emission-tomography (18F-NaF-PET) was used to perform quantitative analysis of the bone metabolism in various parts. The end points of the study were the mean standardized uptake value (SUV) of each member of the ZA group (n = 9), the Dmab group (n = 16), and the Control group (n = 23). RESULTS: The SUV at the thoracic vertebrae in the ZA group were significantly lower than those of the Dmab and Control group (p < 0.05) In addition, the mean SUVs of the cervical vertebrae in the ZA group were significantly lower than those in the Control group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among ZA, Dmab and Control group in the other sites. There was no significant difference between the Dmab and Control groups at all sites. CONCLUSIONS: The remodeling of mandible was not suppressed due to the treatment with anti-resorptive agents. Differences in the mechanisms of action between the BP and Dmab caused the specificity of the effect on the metabolism of normal bone.