Clinical outcome of 302 zygomatic implants in 110 patients with a follow‐up between 6 months and 7 years

Abstract

Background: Zygomatic implant surgery is considered as a safe and successful alternative to the conventional implant surgery with bone grafts for patients with severe atrophic maxilla. Purpose: The aim of this retrospective clinical case series was to report clinical outcome of zygomatic implants with a follow-up between 6 months and 7 years. Materials and methods: A total of 110 patients with 302 zygomatic implants were included in this study. The intra and postoperative complications and survival rate of zygomatic implants were evaluated. Results: The study included 110 consecutively treated patients with an age range of 21 to 76 years (mean 57.35 years, SD 10.42). The overall zygomatic implant survival rate was 98.34%. There were five implant failures in four patients. One intraoperative and 17 postoperative complications developed in 18 patients. There were no dropouts and the median follow-up of the patients was 41.75 months (with a range of 6-89 months). Conclusions: According to the results, in cases of severely atrophic posterior maxilla, zygomatic implant surgery can be considered as an effective and safe alternative to conventional implants and bone grafting procedures.

Oral Rehabilitation of Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patient with Simultaneous LeFort I Osteotomy and Zygomatic Implants: A Case Report

“…Zygomatic implant surgery is a valid and successful option to grafting procedures in the rehabilitation of edentulous atrophic maxilla due to degeneration, malformation and oncological causes (Goker et al, 2020b). There are a certain number of reports in literature about partial and total edentulous cases of CLP with or without oro-naso-sinus communications, that had oral rehabilitation with zygomatic implant insertions (de Santis et al, 2010;Landes et al, 2013;Leven et al, 2021).…”

Zygomatic implant survival in 9 ectodermal dysplasia patients with 3.5‐ to 7‐year follow‐up

“…ZI is considered as a successful alternative for rehabilitation of patients with severe maxillary atrophy; however, ZI insertion is a major surgery and can represent some risks (Aparicio, Manresa, Francisco, Ouazzani, et al, 2014;Brånemark et al, 2004;Candel-Marti, Carrillo-Garcia, Penarrocha-Oltra, & Penarrocha-Diago, 2012;Chrcanovic & Abreu, 2013;Chrcanovic, Albrektsson, & Wennerberg, 2016;D'Agostino et al, 2016;Grecchi et al, 2017;Goker et al, 2020;Yates et al, 2014). The possible complications of ZI surgery include sinusitis, soft tissue infections, paresthesia, and oroantral fistula, penetration of the orbital cavity during the drilling protocol, and failure of the implants (Filho, Amaral, Curra, dos Santos, & Cardoso, 2016;Maló, Nobre, Lopes, Ferro, & Moss, 2015;Nobre, Maló, & Gonçalves, 2015).…”

“…No additional exclusion criterion was set. The surgical, prosthetic and the follow-up protocol was described in detail in a previous article by the same team (Goker, Grecchi, Del Fabbro, & Grecchi, 2020).…”

Survival and complications of zygomatic implants compared to conventional implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow‐up period of at least 5 years: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The general characteristics of each included study are shown in Table 1. Eleven prospective 7,27-34 and 15 retrospective 3,8,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] cohort studies were included in the present SR. A total of 5434 implants (2972 ZI and 2462 CI) were analyzed in 1709 patients. The mean follow-up time was 78 months (6.5 years).…”