Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Attitudes regarding zygomatic implant surgical and prosthodontic techniques—a cohort questionnaire study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery and restoration is a complex procedure, requiring experienced clinicians to execute with success. This study assessed the opinion and clinical experiences of a cohort of practitioners involved in provision of zygomatic implant treatment on aspects of the surgical and prosthodontic procedures.

Method

A survey was distributed among all 176 delegates attending ‘Zygomatic 2019’ International Conference in the UK, and all delegates completed the survey.

Results

The respondents were clinicians from both prosthodontic and surgical specialties, with a range of experience. Strong agreements were found regarding the use of specific implant designs dependent on the anatomical situation, and that fixed restorations should be used where possible. There was limited agreement between respondents regarding surgical approaches to ZI treatment.

Conclusion

The limited agreement found between respondents highlights the varied and conflicting literature available on ZI surgery. High-quality research is required to inform clinicians and assist education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Fernández H, Gómez-Delgado A, Trujillo-Saldarriaga S, Varón-Cardona D, Castro-Núñez J (2014) Zygomatic implants for the management of the severely atrophied maxilla: a retrospective analysis of 244 implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(5):887–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bedrossian E (2010) Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(6):1213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Malevez C, Abarca M, Durdu F, Daelemans P (2004) Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–48 months follow-up study. Clin Oral Implant Res 15(1):18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MHNG (2013) Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 17(2):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goker F, Grecchi E, Del Fabbro M, Grecchi F (2020) Clinical outcome of 302 zygomatic implants in 110 patients with a follow‐up between 6 months and 7 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res

  6. Bedrossian E, Bedrossian EA (2018) Prevention and the management of complications using the zygoma implant: a review and clinical experiences. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33(5):e135–e145

  7. Molinero-Mourelle P, Baca-Gonzalez L, Gao B, Saez-Alcaide L-M, Helm A, Lopez-Quiles J (2016) Surgical complications in zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 21(6):e751

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson PHR, Fasanmade K, Anand P (2019) Oro-facial rehabilitation of cancer patients: ‘Zygomatic 2019’ - 1–2 March 2019, London. UK eCancer 13:925

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aparicio C, López-Piriz R, Albrektsson T (2020) ORIS criteria of success for the zygoma-related rehabilitation: the (revisited) zygoma success code. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 35(2):366–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2016) Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 74(10):1949–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chana H, Smith G, Bansal H, Zahra D (2019) A retrospective cohort study of the survival rate of 88 zygomatic implants placed over an 18-year period. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34(2):461–470

  12. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Öhrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B et al (2004) Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 38(2):70–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Agostino A, Trevisiol L, Favero V, Pessina M, Procacci P, Nocini PF (2016) Are zygomatic implants associated with maxillary sinusitis? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 74(8):1562–1573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strietzel FP, Reichart PA, Kale A, Kulkarni M, Wegner B, Küchler I (2007) Smoking interferes with the prognosis of dental implant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 34(6):523–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Alández J, González-Martín O et al (2014) Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code. Periodontology 2000 66(1):41–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freedman M, Ring M, Stassen L (2015) Effect of alveolar bone support on zygomatic implants in an extra-sinus position—a finite element analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(6):785–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyes-Varley JG, Howes DG, Davidge-Pitts KD, Brånemark P-I, McAlpine JA (2007) A protocol for maxillary reconstruction following oncology resection using zygomatic implants. Int J Prosthodontics 20(5):521–531

  18. Hackett S, El-Wazani B, Butterworth C (2020) Zygomatic implant-based rehabilitation for patients with maxillary and mid-facial oncology defects: a review. Oral Dis 27(1):27–41

  19. Grecchi F, Bianchi A, Siervo S, Grecchi E, Lauritano D, Carinci F (2017) A new surgical and technical approach in zygomatic implantology. ORAL Implantol 10(2):197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Davó R, Malevez C, López-Orellana C, Pastor-Beviá F, Rojas J (2008) Sinus reactions to immediately loaded zygoma implants: a clinical and radiological study. Eur J Oral Implantol 1(1):53–60

  21. Petruson B (2004) Sinuscopy in patients with titanium implants in the nose and sinuses. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 38(2):86–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK

    Stephanie King & Chris Butterworth

Authors
  1. Stephanie King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Butterworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CB constructed and implemented the survey. SK interpreted the survey responses, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie King.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, S., Butterworth, C. Attitudes regarding zygomatic implant surgical and prosthodontic techniques—a cohort questionnaire study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 26, 439–445 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00999-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-021-00999-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation