Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review
- 1.5k Downloads
This systematic review attempted to answer the focused questions: “What is the survival rate of zygomatic implants (ZIs)?” and “What are the most common complications related to surgery of zygomatic implants?”
An electronic search without date or language restrictions was undertaken in PubMed in March 2012. Titles and abstracts from these results (n = 123) were read for identifying studies that meet the eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting clinical series of zygomatic implants (ZIs). Because of the scarcity of articles with high-level grades of evidence, all articles, including studies with few case reports, were considered for inclusion. All reference lists of the selected and review studies were hand-searched for additional papers that might meet the eligibility criteria. Simple case report articles were not included. Review articles without original data were excluded. Quantitative data extracted from the included studies that provided data for the period of failure of ZIs were used for the calculation of interval survival rate during each follow-up period and cumulative survival rate (CSR) over a 12-year period.
Thirty-seven studies were identified without repetition and five more studies were included by hand-searching, giving a total of 42; 12 evaluated the use of ZI applied with immediate function protocols and 3 for rehabilitating patients after maxillary resections for tumor ablations. These latter three studies showed smaller ZI success. Postoperative complications reported were as follows: 70 cases of sinusitis, 48 of soft tissue infection, 15 of paresthesia, and 17 cases of oroantral fistulas. However, this number may be underestimated, since most of the studies did not mention the presence or absence of these complications. Most ZI failures were detected at the abutment connection phase (6 months after the surgery of implant placement) or before. The CSR over a 12-year period was 96.7 %.
Despite the high survival rate observed, there is an impending need for conducting randomized controlled clinical trials to test the efficacy of these implants in comparison with the other techniques to treat the atrophic maxilla. Thus, the findings reported in the review must be interpreted with considerable caution. Moreover, more studies with longer follow-up periods involving adequate number of ZIs are needed. This will help to obtain a better understanding of the survival of ZIs in a long term. It is suggested that multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials and longer clinical studies should be implemented in this area, before recommending routine use of ZIs for patients could be given. The placement of zygomatic implants requires very experienced surgeons because it is not risk free since delicate anatomic structures such as the orbita and brain may be involved.
KeywordsAtrophic maxilla Maxillary sinus Zygomatic implant Success rate Survival rate Complications
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 11.Weingart D, Bublitz R, Petrin G, Kälber J, Ingimarsson S (2005) Kombination der Sinusliftoperation mit der lateralen Kieferkammaugmentation. Ein Behandlungskonzept zur chirurgischprothetischen Rehabilitation der extremen Oberkieferalveolarkammatrophie. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 9:317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Henry PJ, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, Chiapasco M, Gynther G, Finne K, Higuchi KW, Isaksson S, Kahnberg KE, Malevez C, Neukam FW, Sevetz E, Urgell JP, Widmark G, Bolind P (2004) A clinical evaluation of the zygoma fixture: one year of follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62:22–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Garcia R, Arevalo X, Muela R, Fortes V (2006) A prospective clinical study on titanium implants in the zygomatic arch for prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with a follow-up of 6 months to 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 8:114–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kahnberg KE, Henry PJ, Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, Chiapasco M, Gynther G, Finne K, Higuchi KW, Isaksson S, Malevez C, Neukam FW, Sevetz E Jr, Urgell JP, Widmark G, Bolind P (2007) Clinical evaluation of the zygoma implant: 3-year follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65:2033–2038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Esposito M, Worthington HV, Coulthard P (2005) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19:CD004151Google Scholar
- 24.Candel Martí E, Carrillo García C, Peñarrocha Oltra D, Peñarrocha M (2011) Rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla with zygomatic implants: review. J Oral Implantol. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00126
- 29.Duarte LR, Filho HN, Francischone CE, Peredo LG, Brånemark PI (2007) The establishment of a protocol for the total rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae employing four zygomatic fixtures in an immediate loading system—a 30-month clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 9:186–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, Codesal M, Barluenga N, Manresa C, Franch M (2010) 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 12:55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Brånemark P-I (1998) The zygomaticus fixture: clinical procedures, 1st edn. Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, p 1Google Scholar
- 44.Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Hatano N (2008) The use of zygomatic implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla. Periodontol 2000 47:162–171Google Scholar
- 50.Vrielinck L, Politis C, Schepers S, Pauwels M, Naert I (2003) Image-based planning and clinical validation of zygoma and pterygoid implant placement in patients with severe bone atrophy using customized drill guides. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32:7–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Peñarrocha M, García B, Martí E, Boronat A (2007) Rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae with fixed implant-supported prostheses using zygomatic implants placed using the sinus slot technique: clinical report on a series of 21 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:645–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 68.Boyes-Varley JG, Howes DG, Lownie JF (2003) The zygomaticus implant protocol in the treatment of the severely resorbed maxilla. SADJ 58(106–109):113–114Google Scholar