Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing implant and prosthesis survival in zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation: a retrospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate mid-term implant and prosthesis survival in patients with edentulous atrophic maxillae submitted to zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation and to identify possible related risk factors.

Methods

Data were collected from records of patients with edentulous atrophic maxillae, in good general health and who were rehabilitated by means of acrylic resin full-arch screw-retained prosthesis supported by at least one zygomatic implant, between the years of 2006–2017. Implant and prosthesis survival rates were calculated. The association between implant and prosthesis loss and quantitative and qualitative variables of interest was verified with t tests and Fisher’s exact tests, respectively. For the significant variables in the latter, odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were additionally calculated.

Results

The sample comprised 66 patients in whom 171 zygomatic implants were placed to support maxillary screw-retained full-arch prostheses. Implant and prosthesis survival rates of 94.15% and 92.4%, respectively, were observed in a mean of 3.6 years of follow-up (up to 11.7 years). Implant loss was 4.33 more likely to occur when adverse events were recorded after the procedure of implant placement (P = 0.026) and 10.31 more likely to occur in implants that had their prosthesis repaired during follow-up visits (P = 0.004). Prosthesis loss was 22.00 times more likely to occur when implants were previously lost (P < 0.001). All prostheses that were considered as failures (i.e. were replaced) had been previously submitted to laboratory repair at some point during follow-up.

Conclusions

Zygomatic implant rehabilitation demonstrated to be a reliable method with good mid-term results. The occurrence of post-surgical adverse events and need for laboratory repair of the prosthesis were found to be significant risk factors for implant loss. Previous implant loss was significantly associated with prosthesis loss. These risk factors may be prevented by means of detailed planning of the rehabilitation to be carried out, including post-operative care of the patients, so that treatment success using zygomatic implants can be achieved.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patients’ and sponsor privacy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Tyrovolas S, Koyanagi A, Panagiotakos DB, Haro JM, Kassebaum NJ, Chrepa V, et al. Population prevalence of edentulism and its association with depression and self-rated health. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernardi S, Macchiarelli G. Autologous materials in regenerative dentistry : harvested bone, platelet concentrates and dentin derivates maxillary. Molecules. 2020;25(22):5330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheiham A, Steele JG, Marcenes W, Tsakos G, Finch S, Walls AWG. Prevalence of impacts of dental and oral disorders and their effects on eating among older people; a national survey in Great Britain. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(3):195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marques FP, Do Tôrres LHN, Bidinotto AB, Hilgert JB, Hugo FN, De Marchi RJ. Incidence and predictors of edentulism among south Brazilian older adults. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2017;45(2):160–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorní M, Guarinós J, García O, Peñarrocha M. Rehabilitación implantológica del maxilar superior atrófico: Revisión de la literatura desde 1999 Implant rehabilitation of the atrophic upper jaw : A review of the literature since 1999. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2005;10:45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grasso G, Mummolo S, Bernardi S, Pietropaoli D, D’Ambrosio G, Iezzi G, et al. Histological and histomorphometric evaluation of new bone formation after maxillary sinus augmentation with two different osteoconductive materials: a randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial. Materials. 2020;13:5520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Silva LF, de Lima VN, Faverani LP, de Mendonça MR, Okamoto R, Pellizzer EP. Maxillary sinus lift surgery-with or without graft material? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(12):1570–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Araújo R, Sverzut A, Trivellato A, Sverzut C. Retrospective analysis of 129 consecutive zygomatic implants used to rehabilitate severely resorbed maxillae in a two-stage protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;32(2):377–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ali SA, Karthigeyan S, Deivanai M, Kumar A. Implant rehabilitation for atrophic maxilla: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14(3):196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Triplett RG, Schow SR, Laskin DM. Oral and maxillofacial surgery advances in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15(1):47–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, et al. Immediate/early loading of zygomatic implants: clinical experiences after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(Suppl. 1):77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mozzati M, Monfrin SB, Pedretti G, Schierano G, Bassi F. Immediate loading of maxillary fixed prostheses retained by zygomatic and conventional implants: 24-month preliminary data for a series of clinical case reports. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23(2):308–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2016;74(10):1949–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferrara ED, Stella JP. Restoration of the edentulous maxilla: the case for the zygomatic implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(11):1418–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pommer B, Mailath-Pokorny G, Haas R, Busenlechner D, Fürhauser R, Watzek G. Patients’ preferences towards minimally invasive treatment alternatives for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl 2):S91–109.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Padovan LEM, Ribeiro-Júnior PD, de Mattias Sartori IA, Thomé G, Sartori EM, Uhlendorf J. Multiple zygomatic implants as an alternative for rehabilitation of the extremely atrophic maxilla: a case letter with 55 months of follow-up. J Oral Implantol. 2013;41(1):97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Urgell JP, Gutiérrez VR, Escoda CG. Rehabilitation of atrophic maxilla with zygomatic implants: review of 101 zygomatic implants. Med Oral Patol Oral y Cir Bucal. 2008;13(6):E363–70.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A retrospective analysis of 110 zygomatic implants in a single-stage immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(2):335–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Landes CA. Zygoma implant-supported midfacial prosthetic rehabilitation: a 4-year follow-up study including assessment of quality of life. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(3):313–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gracher AHP, de Moura MB, da Silva PP, Thomé G, Padovan LEM, Trojan LC. Full arch rehabilitation in patients with atrophic upper jaws with zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Candel-Martí E, Carrillo-García C, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla with zygomatic implants: review. J Oral Implantol. 2011;38(5):653–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuminelli FJ. Immediate loading of zygomatic implants : a systematic review of implant survival, prosthesis survival and potential complications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:79–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Maló P, de Araújo NM, Lopes A, Ferro A, Moss S. Extramaxillary surgical technique: clinical outcome of 352 patients rehabilitated with 747 zygomatic implants with a follow-up between 6 months and 7 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(S1):e153–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tzerbos F, Bountaniotis F, Theologie-Lygidakis N, Fakitsas D, Fakitsas I. Complications of zygomatic implants: our clinical experience with 4 cases. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2016;50(3):251–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, Moreno A, Gennari-Filho H, Dos Santos DM, Santiago JF, et al. Implants in the zygomatic bone for maxillary prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg [Internet]. 2014;43(6):748–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2014.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fernández H, Gómez-Delgado A, Trujillo-Saldarriaga S, Varón-Cardona D, Castro-Núñez J. Zygomatic implants for the management of the severely atrophied maxilla: a retrospective analysis of 244 implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(5):887–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sartori EM, Padovan LEM, De Mattias Sartori IA, Ribeiro PD, De Souza G, Carvalho AC, Goiato MC. Evaluation of satisfaction of patients rehabilitated with zygomatic fixtures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(2):314–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, et al. Extrasinus 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davo R, Pons O, Rojas J, Carpio E. Immediate function of four zygomatic implants: a 1-year report of a prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(4):323–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hinze M, Vrielinck L, Thalmair T, Wachtel H, Bolz W. Zygomatic implant placement in conjunction with sinus bone grafting: the “extended sinus elevation technique”. A case-cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(6):e376–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kahnberg KE, Henry PJ, Hirsch JM, Öhrnell LO, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, et al. Clinical evaluation of the zygoma implant: 3-year follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(10):2033–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hirsch JM, Hrnell LO, Henry PJ, Andreasson L, Brnemark PI, Chiapasco M, et al. A clinical evaluation of the zygoma fixture: one year of follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(SUPPL. 2):22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu Y, Wang XD, Wang F, Huang W, Zhang Z, Zhang Z, et al. Restoration of oral function for adult edentulous patients with ectodermal dysplasia: a prospective preliminary clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:e633–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Esposito M, Hirsch J-M, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing three major determinants for late implant failures in the Brånemark system. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(106):527–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Romeed SA, Malik R, Dunne SM. Zygomatic implants: the impact of zygoma bone support on biomechanics. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(3):231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Uchida Y, Goto M, Katsuki T, Akiyoshi T. Measurement of the maxilla and zygoma as an aid in installing zygomatic implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;59(10):1193–8. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Neodent was the sponsor of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ilapeo College, R. Jacarezinho, 656, Curitiba, PR, 80710-150, Brazil

    Luis Eduardo Marques Padovan, Dalton Suzuki, Leandro Eduardo Kluppel, Camila Pereira Vianna & Larissa Carvalho Trojan

  2. Private Practice, Curitiba, Brazil

    Waleska Caldas

Authors
  1. Luis Eduardo Marques Padovan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dalton Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leandro Eduardo Kluppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camila Pereira Vianna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Waleska Caldas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Larissa Carvalho Trojan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LEMP and DS: patient treatment; LEK: critical revision; CPV: acquisition of data and drafting of manuscript; WC: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript; LCT: study conception and design.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larissa Carvalho Trojan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

L.E.M.P receives financial support as speaker for the company that manufactures the implants and components (Neodent) but affirm that they have no direct or indirect financial interest in the products or information listed in the article. W.C. and L.C.T work in the company that manufactures the implants and components (Neodent) but affirm that they have no direct or indirect financial interest in the products or information listed in the article. D.S., L.E.K. and C.P.V declare to have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The present retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital of Otorhinolaryngology—IPO (CAAE: 06219818.8.0000.5529).

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

Padovan, L.E.M., Suzuki, D., Kluppel, L.E. et al. Factors influencing implant and prosthesis survival in zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation: a retrospective study. Odontology 109, 965–972 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00621-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00621-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation