The Zygomatic Anatomy-Guided Approach, Zygomatic Orbital Floor Classification, and ORIS Criteria-A 10-Year Follow-Up.
ORIS criteria
ZAGA classification
ZOF classification
zygomatic implants
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2023
23 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
26
08
2023
revised:
04
10
2023
accepted:
16
10
2023
medline:
28
10
2023
pubmed:
28
10
2023
entrez:
28
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Presently, the management of patients with maxilla bone defects of the Cawood V or VI class is achieved using zygomatic or individual implants or through augmentation of the bone. For zygomatic implants, the ORIS criteria represent the most common factor in helping practitioners register success rates. The zygomatic anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA)and zygomatic orbital floor (ZOF) are factors that are crucial to examining the anatomy of a particular patient before the procedure. The aim of thisarticle is to find the statistical relationship between the abovementioned terms and other factors. A total of 81 patients underwent zygomatic implant procedures in different configurations. The ORIS, ZAGA, and ZOF parameters were compared with other factors such as type of surgery, sex, age, and the anatomy of the zygomatic bone. Most patients in this article were classified as ZAGA Class 2. The relationships between type of surgery and ZAGA classification, and ZAGA and sinus/maxilla zygomatic implant localization were statistically significant. The ZAGA and ZOF scales are practical and valuable factors that should be taken into account before surgery, whereas to date, criteria better than the ORIS scale have not been described in terms of the success of zygomatic implants. The ZOF scale might omit perforation of the orbit because this parameter warns a practitioner to be aware of the anatomy of the orbit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Presently, the management of patients with maxilla bone defects of the Cawood V or VI class is achieved using zygomatic or individual implants or through augmentation of the bone. For zygomatic implants, the ORIS criteria represent the most common factor in helping practitioners register success rates. The zygomatic anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA)and zygomatic orbital floor (ZOF) are factors that are crucial to examining the anatomy of a particular patient before the procedure. The aim of thisarticle is to find the statistical relationship between the abovementioned terms and other factors.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 81 patients underwent zygomatic implant procedures in different configurations. The ORIS, ZAGA, and ZOF parameters were compared with other factors such as type of surgery, sex, age, and the anatomy of the zygomatic bone.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most patients in this article were classified as ZAGA Class 2. The relationships between type of surgery and ZAGA classification, and ZAGA and sinus/maxilla zygomatic implant localization were statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The ZAGA and ZOF scales are practical and valuable factors that should be taken into account before surgery, whereas to date, criteria better than the ORIS scale have not been described in terms of the success of zygomatic implants. The ZOF scale might omit perforation of the orbit because this parameter warns a practitioner to be aware of the anatomy of the orbit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37892822
pii: jcm12206681
doi: 10.3390/jcm12206681
pmc: PMC10607356
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11 Suppl 1:S123-S136
pubmed: 30109304
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Jul;46(7):938-940
pubmed: 28258795
Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70-85
pubmed: 15202664
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010 Mar;12(1):55-61
pubmed: 19076181
J Am Dent Assoc. 1979 Mar;98(3):373-7
pubmed: 283157
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Dec;80(6):639-40
pubmed: 9830065
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021 Jan-Feb;36(1):21-29
pubmed: 33600519
Periodontol 2000. 2008;47:162-71
pubmed: 18412580
Eur J Oral Sci. 1998 Jun;106(3):721-64
pubmed: 9672097
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(2):145-161
pubmed: 29806663
Rhinology. 1993 Dec;31(4):183-4
pubmed: 8140385
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(3):159-65
pubmed: 16219246
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Sep;117(3 Pt 2):S1-7
pubmed: 9334782
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Mar/Apr;35(2):366-378
pubmed: 32142574
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Nov;100(5):354-66
pubmed: 18992569
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 May-Jun;21(3):399-404
pubmed: 16796282
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25
pubmed: 3527955
Periodontol 2000. 2014 Oct;66(1):41-58
pubmed: 25123760
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Nov-Dec;15(6):889-93
pubmed: 11151591
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003 Mar-Apr;18(2):232-7
pubmed: 12705301
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007 Dec;9(4):186-96
pubmed: 18031440
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 Jul-Aug;22(4):645-50
pubmed: 17929527
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015 Summer;8(2):169-74
pubmed: 26021227
J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Jul;31(7):497-500
pubmed: 15191582
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(3):114-22
pubmed: 16919019