Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to review the biomechanical studies, finite element analysis and clinical reports on the prosthetic and surgical principles for the survival of implants when reconstructing the edentulous maxillae using the zygoma implant.
Method: Comprehensive search of studies published from 1983 to December 2015 listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE databases was performed. Relevant studies were selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results: The initial database search yielded 653 titles. After filtering, 192 abstracts were selected, with resultant 33 full-text articles considered relevant and included. Consensus among authors was identified in regard to the number and the distribution of implants; limiting or eliminating distal cantilevers; and importance for the presence of crestal bone at the platform of the zygoma implant which reduces the magnitude of occlusal load on the implant–bone as well as the implant–abutment interface.
Conclusion: The result of this review suggests that placement of the two zygoma implants (ad modum Branemark) in conjunction with 2–4 premaxillary implants, rigidly connected and stabilized with a fixed prosthesis, allows for the favourable force distribution during function. In cases where complete lack of maxillary alveolus is identified, the placement of four zygoma implants, rigidly connected with a fixed prosthesis, also has a predictable outcome.
Zygoma Zygomatic Biomechanics Ad modum Branemark Extra-sinus Implant Maxillary reconstruction
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Bedrossian E, Sullivan R, Fortin Y, Malo P, Rangert B, Indersano T. Fixed-prosthetic restoration of the edentulous maxilla: a systematic pre-treatment evaluation method. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66:112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davó R. Zygomatic implants placed with a two stage procedure: a 5-year retrospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2:115–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bedrossian E. Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:1233–40.Google Scholar
Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Ouazzani W, Claros P, Potau JM, et al. The long-term use of zygomatic implants: a 10-year clinical and radiographic report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16:447–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson ARL, Austin BW. Zygomatic fixtures-the Sydney experience. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000;15:337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Higuchi KW. The zygomatic fixture: an alternative approach for implant anchorage in the posterior maxilla. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2000;15:28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bedrossian E, Stumpel LJ. The zygomatic implant: preliminary data on treatment of severely resorbed maxillae. A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:861–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Malevez C, et al. Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6-48 month follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;115:18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branemark PI, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aparicio C, et al. A prospective clinical study on titanium implants in the zygomatic arch for prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: a follow-up of 6 months to 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Res. 2006;8:114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrcanovic BR, et al. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;17:81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goiato MC. Implants in the zygomatic bone for maxillary prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:748–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang F, et al. Reliability of four Zygomatic implant-supported prostheses for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ujigawa K. Three-dimensional finite elemental analysis of zygomatic implants in craniofacial structures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;36:620–5. systematic pretreatment evaluation method, J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66:112-122, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedrossian E, Stumpel L. Immediate stabilization at phase II of zygomaticus fixtures: a simplified technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(1):10–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman M, Ring M, Stassen LFA. Effect of alveolar bone support on zygomatic implants: a finite element analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;42:671–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman M, Ring M, Stassen LFA. Effect of alveolar bone support on zygomatic implants in an extra-sinus position—a finite element analysis study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao Y, Skalak R, Brånemark P-I. Analysis of a dental prosthesis supported by Zygomatic fixtures. Gothenberg, Sweden: The Insitute for Applied Biotechnology.Google Scholar
Skalak R. Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:843–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Brånemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brunski JB. Biomechanical aspects of the optimal number of implants to carry a cross-arch full restoration. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl2):S111–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bevilacqua M, et al. The influence of cantilever length and implant inclination on stress distribution in maxillary implant supported fixed dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;105:5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilherme CS, et al. Stress patterns on implants in prostheses supported by four or six implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:239–46.Google Scholar
Nkenke E, et al. Anatomic site evaluation of the zygomatic bone for dental implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:72–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brånemark P-I, Hansson B, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Oseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Stockholm: Alqvist & Wiksell International; 1977.Google Scholar
Zarb G, Jansson T. Prosthodontic procedures. In: Brånemark P-I, Zarb G, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue-integrated prostheses. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985.Google Scholar
Maló P, et al. 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(Suppl. 1):e153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aparicio A, et al. Zygomatic implants placed using the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach versus the classical technique. A proposed system to report rhinosinusitis 237 diagnosis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;16(5):1–16.Google Scholar
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;4:269–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aparicio C. The zygoma anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA). In: Aparicio C, editor. Zygomatic implants: the anatomy guided approach. Berlin: Ed. Quintessence; 2012. p. 113–35.Google Scholar
Aparicio CZ. The ABC to establish the implant trajec- tory. In: Aparicio C, editor. Zygomatic implants: the anatomy guided approach. Berlin: Ed. Quintessence; 2012. p. 137–62.Google Scholar
Eduardo M. Closure of Oralantral communication with Buccal fat pad flap in Zygomatic implant surgery: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:143–6.Google Scholar
Eduardo M. The Buccal fat pad flap: an option to prevent and treat complications regarding complex Zygomatic implant surgery. Preliminary report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:905–10.Google Scholar