Round and flat zygomatic implants: effectiveness after a 3‑year follow‑up non‑interventional study.
ORIS criteria
ZAGA
ZAGA implants
ZAGA-flat
ZAGA-round
Zygomatic implant late complications
Zygomatic implants
Journal
International journal of implant dentistry
ISSN: 2198-4034
Titre abrégé: Int J Implant Dent
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101676532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jun 2024
10 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
26
02
2024
accepted:
21
05
2024
medline:
10
6
2024
pubmed:
10
6
2024
entrez:
10
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This non-interventional study investigates variations in the type and frequency of late complications linked to novel zygomatic implant designs, installed adhering to the Zygoma Anatomy-Guided Approach (ZAGA) concept, over an extended follow-up period of at least 3 years. Consecutive patients presenting indications for treatment with ZIs were treated according to ZAGA recommendations. Implants were immediately loaded. The ORIS success criteria for prosthetic offset, stability, sinus changes and soft-tissue status were used to evaluate the outcome. Twenty patients were treated. Ten patients received two ZIs and regular implants; one received three ZIs plus regular implants, and nine received four ZIs. Fifty-nine ZIs were placed: thirty-six (61%) Straumann ZAGA-Flat implants and twenty-three (39%) Straumann ZAGA-Round implants. Four patients (20%) presented earlier sinus floor discontinuities. Fifteen patients (75%) had prior sinus opacities. Nineteen patients were followed for between 38 and 53 months (mean 46.5 months). One patient dropped out after 20 months. When comparing pre-surgical CBCT with post-surgical CBCT, 84.7% of the sites presented identical or less sinus opacity; nine locations (15%) showed decreased, and another nine increased (15%) post-surgical sinus opacity. Fifty-three ZIs (89.8%) maintained stable soft tissue. Six ZIs had recessions with no signs of infection. ZIs and prosthesis survival rate was 100%. The study highlights the effectiveness of ZAGA-based zygomatic implant rehabilitations using Round and Flat designs. Despite patient number constraints, minimal changes in the frequency of late complications from the 1-year follow-up were observed. 100% implant and prosthesis survival rate over a mean follow-up of 46.5 months is reported.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38856876
doi: 10.1186/s40729-024-00548-9
pii: 10.1186/s40729-024-00548-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Aparicio C, Branemark PI, Keller EE, Olivé J. Reconstruction of the premaxilla with autogenous lliac bone in combination with osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8:1–15.
Jensen OT, Brownd C, Blacker J. Nasofacial prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992;7(2):203–11.
pubmed: 1398837
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(10):1949–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.166
pubmed: 27422530
Sáez-Alcaide LM, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Sánchez-Labrador L, Pérez-González F, Forteza-López A, Molinero-Mourelle P, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in patients with severe maxillary bone atrophy restored with zygomatic implant-supported complete dental prostheses: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2022;80(5):363–73.
doi: 10.1080/00016357.2021.2018494
pubmed: 35044889
Solà Pérez A, Pastorino D, Aparicio C, Pegueroles Neyra M, Khan RS, Wright S, et al. Success rates of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Dent J. 2022;10(8):151.
doi: 10.3390/dj10080151
Moraschini V, de Queiroz TR, Sartoretto SC, de Almeida DCF, Calasans-Maia MD, Louro RS. 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. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(1):177–89.
doi: 10.1111/cid.13153
pubmed: 36373779
Felice P, Barausse C, Davó R, Pistilli R, Marti-Pages C, Ferrer-Fuertes A, et al. Immediately loaded zygomatic implants versus conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: three-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Clin Trials Dent. 2020;02(03):5–25.
doi: 10.36130/CTD.04.2020.02
Brånemark P-I, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell L-O, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70–85.
doi: 10.1080/02844310310023918
pubmed: 15202664
Jensen OT, Adams M, Cottam JR, Ringeman J. Occult peri-implant oroantral fistulae: posterior maxillary peri-implantitis/sinusitis of zygomatic or dental implant origin. Treatment and prevention with bone morphogenetic protein-2/absorbable collagen sponge sinus grafting. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(6):e512–20.
doi: 10.11607/jomi.te32
pubmed: 24278959
Bothur S, Garsten M. Initial speech problems in patients treated with multiple zygomatic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(2):379–84.
pubmed: 20369099
Molinero-Mourelle P, Baca-Gonzalez L, Gao B, Saez-Alcaide LM, Helm A, Lopez-Quiles J. Surgical complications in zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(6):e751–7.
pubmed: 27694789
pmcid: 5116118
Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Aparicio A, Nunes J, Claros P, et al. Zygomatic implants placed using the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach versus the classical technique: a proposed system to report rhinosinusitis diagnosis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(5):627–42.
doi: 10.1111/cid.12047
pubmed: 23464749
Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Abrahamsson P, Sennerby L. Evaluation of 31 zygomatic implants and 74 regular dental implants used in 16 patients for prosthetic reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with cross-arch fixed bridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(3):159–65.
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00060.x
pubmed: 16219246
Vrielinck L, Moreno-Rabie C, Schepers S, Van Eyken P, Coucke W, Politis C. Peri-zygomatic infection associated with zygomatic implants: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(4):405–12.
doi: 10.1111/clr.13900
pubmed: 35137456
Stella JP, Warner MR. Sinus slot technique for simplification and improved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(6):889–93.
pubmed: 11151591
Peñarrocha M, Uribe R, García B, Martí E. Zygomatic implants using the sinus slot technique: clinical report of a patient series. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(5):788–92.
pubmed: 16274155
Boyes-Varley JG, Howes DG, Lownie JF, Blackbeard GA. Surgical modifications to the Brånemark zygomaticus protocol in the treatment of the severely resorbed maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(2):232–7.
pubmed: 12705301
Maló P, Nobre MDA, Lopes I. A new approach to rehabilitate the severely atrophic maxilla using extra maxillary anchored implants in immediate function: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(5):354–66.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60237-1
pubmed: 18992569
Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, et al. Extra Sinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(1):55–61.
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00130.x
pubmed: 19076181
Migliorança RM, Coppedê A, Dias Rezende RCL, de Mayo T. Restoration of the edentulous maxilla using extra sinus zygomatic implants combined with anterior conventional implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(3):665–72.
pubmed: 21691615
Chow J, Wat P, Hui E, Lee P, Li W. A new method to eliminate the risk of maxillary sinusitis with zygomatic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(6):1233–40.
pubmed: 21197502
Aparicio C. A proposed classification for zygomatic implant patient based on the zygoma anatomy guided approach (ZAGA): a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4(3):269–75.
pubmed: 22043470
Aparicio C. The zygoma anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA) to implant placement. Zygomatic implants: the anatomy-guided approach. Quintessence; 2012.
Aparicio C. The new portfolio of site-specific zygomatic implants. Advanced zygomatic implants: the ZAGA concept. Quintessence; 2023.
Aparicio C, Polido WD, Chow J, Davó R, Al-Nawas B. Round and flat zygomatic implants: effectiveness after a 1-year follow-up non-interventional study. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8(1):13.
doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00412-8
pubmed: 35359196
pmcid: 8971328
Aparicio C, Polido WD, Chow J, David L, Davo R, De Moraes EJ, et al. Identification of the pathway and appropriate use of four zygomatic implants in the atrophic maxilla: a cross-sectional study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(4):807–17.
doi: 10.11607/jomi.8603
pubmed: 34411224
Aparicio C, Polido WD, Zarrinkelk HM. The zygoma anatomy-guided approach for placement of zygomatic implants. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2021;29(2):203–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.05.004
Aparicio C, López-Piriz R, Albrektsson T. ORIS criteria of success for the zygoma-related rehabilitation: the (revisited) zygoma success code. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(2):366–78.
doi: 10.11607/jomi.7488
pubmed: 32142574
Lund VJ, Mackay IS. Staging in rhinosinusitis. Rhinology. 1993;31(4):183–4.
pubmed: 8140385
Lanza DC, Kennedy DW. Adult rhinosinusitis defined. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;117(3 Pt 2):S1-7.
doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(97)70001-9
pubmed: 9334782
Al-Nawas B, Domagala P, Fragola G, Freiberger P, Ortiz-Vigón A, Rousseau P, et al. A prospective non interventional study to evaluate survival and success of reduced diameter implants made from titanium–zirconium alloy. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(4):e118–25.
doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00149
pubmed: 24666383