Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 4 30. July 2020
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35 (2020), No. 4 (30.07.2020)
Page 750-756, doi:10.11607/jomi.8196, PubMed:32724927
Retrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation
Yalçın, Mustafa / Can, Serhat / Akbaş, Mert / Dergin, Gühan / Garip, Hasan / Aydil, Barış Altuğ / Varol, Altan
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate 141 zygomatic implants for the reconstruction of severely atrophic maxillae.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective case series study, zygomatic implants were placed under general anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ASA I or ASA II, age older than 18 years, inadequate bone for restoration with conventional implants, alternative augmentation procedures considered either inappropriate or contraindicated, absence of a medical condition related to implant failure, and providing written consent. Zygomatic implants used in the study consisted of three different brands: NobelZygoma, Southern Implants System, and Implantswiss.
Results: The study included 45 patients, in whom 141 zygomatic implants were placed. The mean age of the patients was 51.76 (range: 23 to 72) years. Three patients were rehabilitated with removable prostheses, 19 patients with fixed prostheses, and 23 patients with hybrid prostheses. The overall complication rate was 5.67% (two zygomatic implants developed infection [1.4%], one zygomatic implant developed peri-implantitis [0.7%], three zygomatic implants developed sinusitis [2.1%], and two zygomatic implants showed unsuccessful prosthetic rehabilitation [1.4%]). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 36 months.
Conclusion: Clinical complications of zygomatic implants are acceptable, and their survival rates are similar to those of endosteal implants. Zygomatic implants can contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation.
Keywords: atrophic maxilla, survival rate, zygomatic implant