The aim of this study was to review the characteristics of ‘implant presence-triggered osteonecrosis’ (IPTO) in the literature and identify possible differences between IPTOs and ‘implant surgery-triggered osteonecrosis’ (ISTO).

Reviews using PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were performed from 2009–2018; the focus was on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) and dental implants. In addition, the hospital records of all patients presented in our department with IPTO were retrospectively reviewed. In both studies, the following data were collected: the number of patients with ISTO or IPTO, age, gender, location, stage of MRONJ, number of implants involved in MRONJ, the elapsed time between the placement of the implants and the development of MRONJ, applied treatment and the presence of mandibular fractures and progress.

The literature review provided 111 articles. Nine of the articles were selected for bibliographic review. The number of osteonecrosis cases was significantly higher in the IPTO group (74 cases) compared with the ISTO group (27 cases). The duration of the anti-resorptive treatment (oral and intravenous) was also longer in the IPTO group. In our centre, seven patients with IPTO were chosen; however, no patients with ISTO were selected. The significant differences between the patients in our series and the information collected in the literature for the IPTO group were the time of ingestion of alendronate, the elapsed time from the placement of the implants to the development of the MRONJ and the number of implants linked to the development of a complication.

The use of antiresorptives causes osteonecrosis in patients with implants that are subjected to functional loading, and this occurs at a higher frequency than what is observed after implant placement surgery.