Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Sinus Complication and Survival Rates of Quad Zygoma versus Bizygoma in Combination with two Regular Implants in Atrophic Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • REVIEW PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To systematically review existing scientific literature to determine, compare and evaluate the sinus complication and survival rates of quad zygoma against two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants in atrophic maxilla in adults.

Methods

Review was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines and registered in PROSPERO—CRD42023392721 Electronic databases like PubMed, Google scholar and EBSCO host were searched from 2000 to December 2022 for studies reporting treatment of Atrophic maxilla with either quad zygoma or two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants. Quality assessment was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCT). The risk of bias summary graph and risk of bias summary applicability concern was plotted using RevMan software version 5.3. The odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as summary statistic measure with random effect model and p value < 0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only nine studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through the odds ratio 0.59 signifies that the quad zygomatic implants on an average has 0.59 (0.18–1.93) times or odds of developing sinus complications while the SMD signifies that better survival rate (SR) on an average is 0.35 (− 0.61 to 1.30) times more by two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants as compared to quad zygomatic implants (p > 0.05). Publication bias through the funnel plot showed asymmetric distribution with systematic heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants provides better survival rate and less sinus complications compared to quad zygoma in atrophic maxilla. Despite the high SR observed, there is a need to conduct more randomized controlled clinical trials to examine their efficacy in comparison with other techniques.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ali SA et al (2014) Implant rehabilitation for atrophic maxilla: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14(3):196–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-014-0360-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Marco S, Juan G et al (2005) Implant rehabilitation of the atrophic upper jaw: a review of the literature since 1999. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 10:E45–E56

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dym H et al (2012) Alveolar bone grafting and reconstruction procedures prior to implant placement. Dent Clin North Ame 56(1):209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2011.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper LF (2009) The current and future treatment of edentulism. J Prosthodont 18(2):116–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00441.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chrcanovic BR, Freire-Maia B (2010) Maxillary sinus aplasia. Oral Maxillofac Surg 14(3):187–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-009-0200-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pham AV, Abarca M, De Mey A, Malevez C (2004) Rehabilitation of a patient with cleft lip and palate with an extremely edentulous atrophied posterior maxilla using zygomatic implants: case report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 41(5):571–574. https://doi.org/10.1597/03-105.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gómez E, González T, Arias J, Lasaletta L (2008) Three-dimensional reconstruction after removal of zygomatic intraosseous hemangioma. Oral Maxillofac Surg 12(3):159–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-008-0115-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chrcanovic BR, do Amaral MB, Marigo Hde A, Freire-Maia B (2010) An expanded odontogenic myxoma in maxilla. Stomatologija 12(4):122–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Messias A, Nicolau P, Guerra F (2021) Different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported prostheses: an overview of systematic reviews. Int J Prosthodont 34:s63–s84. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310310023918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Esposito M, Worthington HV (2013) Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013(9):CD004151. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004151.pub3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Langer B, Langer L, Herrmann I, Jorneus L (1993) The wide fixture: a solution for special bone situations and a rescue for the compromised implant. Part 1. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 8(4):400–408

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Henry PJ et al (2004) A clinical evaluation of the Zygoma fixture: one year of follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 62(9 Suppl 2):22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.06.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Luchini C, Veronese N, Nottegar A et al (2021) Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools. Pharm Stat 20(1):185–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.2068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Corbett MS, Higgins JP, Woolacott NF (2014) Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Res Synth Methods 5(1):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sterne JA, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54(10):1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(3):114–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00009.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A et al (2010) Immediate/early loading of zygomatic implants: clinical experiences after 2 to 5 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 12(Suppl 1):e77–e82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00134.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bedrossian E (2010) Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(6):1213–1221

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coppedê A, de Mayo T, de Sá ZM, Amorin R, de Pádua APAT, Shibli JA (2017) Three-year clinical prospective follow-up of extrasinus zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(5):926–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Davo R, Pons O, Rojas J, Carpio E (2010) Immediate function of four zygomatic implants: a 1-year report of a prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol 3(4):323–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A, Malevez C (2012) Immediate loading of zygomatic implants using the intraoral welding technique: a 12-month case series. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 32(5):e154–e161

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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(4):186–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00046.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 Implants Res 15(1):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1600-0501.2003.00985.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Davó R, Malevez C, Rojas J, Rodríguez J, Regolf J (2008) Clinical outcome of 42 patients treated with 81 immediately loaded zygomatic implants: a 12- to 42-month retrospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol 9 Suppl 1(2):141–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Maló P, Nobre Mde A, Lopes A, Ferro A, Moss S (2014) Five-year outcome of a retrospective cohort study on the rehabilitation of completely edentulous atrophic maxillae with immediately loaded zygomatic implants placed extra-maxillary. Eur J Oral Implantol 7(3):267–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Solà Pérez A et al (2022) Success rates of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Dent J 10(8):151. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10080151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aboul-Hosn Centenero S et al (2018) Zygoma quad compared with 2 zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implant Dent 27(2):246–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Agliardi EL, Romeo D, Panigatti S, de Araújo NM, Maló P (2017) Immediate full-arch rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla supported by zygomatic implants: a prospective clinical study with minimum follow-up of 6 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46(12):1592–1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.05.023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, India

    Kavita Wadde, Sandhya Kokitkar, Lakshmi Venkatakrishnan, Suleka Ranganath & Samir Khaire

Authors
  1. Kavita Wadde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandhya Kokitkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lakshmi Venkatakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suleka Ranganath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Samir Khaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandhya Kokitkar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wadde, K., Kokitkar, S., Venkatakrishnan, L. et al. Comparative Evaluation of Sinus Complication and Survival Rates of Quad Zygoma versus Bizygoma in Combination with two Regular Implants in Atrophic Maxilla: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02136-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-024-02136-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation