Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

Rapid Smile Restoration: Basal Implants for the Edentulous Mandible With Immediate Loading

In the significant atrophic jaws, it is difficult to place dental implants since there is a qualitative and quantitative shortage of future implant beds. Basal implants, also known as cortical or bicortical implants, offer a viable alternative for dental rehabilitation in patients with significant alveolar bone loss. These implants are anchored in the dense basal bone, providing immediate stability and allowing for immediate loading, thereby reducing overall treatment time and eliminating the need for extensive bone grafting procedures. This case report demonstrates the efficacy of basal implants in providing immediate functional and aesthetic restoration for patients with significant alveolar bone loss, by describing a 49-year-old patient who presented with severe alveolar ridge resorption, making traditional implant placement unfeasible. Basal implants were successfully placed, and an immediate prosthesis was delivered, resulting in excellent functional and aesthetic outcomes.

Revolutionizing Maxillary Rehabilitation: Zygomatic Implants Addressing Severe Alveolar Atrophy

This case report describes the care given to a 58-year-old male patient with severe upper jaw atrophy. The treatment strategy involved utilizing zygomatic implants in conjunction with endosteal implants to rehabilitate both the maxilla and mandible. Temporary prostheses were used during the healing phase, followed by the fabrication and placement of final prostheses. The utilization of zygomatic implants offers advantages such as immediate stabilization and function without the need for extensive bone grafting. This approach not only reduces treatment time and costs but also enhances patient outcomes. Furthermore, guided surgical techniques are increasingly employed to ensure precise implant placement, optimizing prosthetic support.

Zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxilla: an overview of current systematic reviews and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Zygomatic implants are a treatment option for severely atrophic maxilla.

MAIN TEXT

This study aimed to summarize and evaluate systematic reviews assessing the clinical outcomes of zygomatic implants including survival/failure rate and complications. PubMed-MEDLINE, Google Scholar, LILACS, and the Cochrane Database were searched up to April 2020. Risk of bias assessment was conducted by the AMSTAR tool. Initial searches yielded 175 studies. These were assessed, and following title abstract and full-text evaluation, 7 studies (2 meta-analyses) were included in the final review. According to the AMSTAR tool, 1 was deemed high quality, 4 were classified as medium, and 2 as low quality. The mean AMSTAR score (±SD) was 5.28 of 9 (±2.36) ranging from 2/9 to 9/9. The reported survival rates ranged from 95.2 to 100% except for resected maxillas, which established higher failure rates up to 21.43%. Concerning the complications with the zygomatic implants, various surgical and prosthetic complications were reported with sinusitis being the most frequently observed complication. Zygomatic implants appears to offer a promising alternative to formal bone grafting techniques with lower costs, less complications, less morbidity, shorter treatment times, and comparably high survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Complications were rare and usually easy to manage. However, the treatment should be directed by appropriately trained clinicians with noticeable surgical experience.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae.

Material and Methods

Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019.

Results

Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were: maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality.

Conclusions

Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation.

Key words:Zygomatic Implants, dental Implants, complications, oral rehabilitation.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest passing through the maxillary sinus, or externally to it, to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants may also be needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilise the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed prosthesis could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for zygomatic implants could be maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for the rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses of severely resorbed maxillae.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 June 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 June 2013). Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with severely resorbed maxillae, who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus participants treated with bone augmentation procedures and conventional dental implants, with a follow-up of at least one year in function.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors would have extracted data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias independently and in duplicate. The results of included studies were to be combined in meta-analyses using random-effects models where there were more than four studies, and fixed-effect models where there were less than four studies. We would have expressed the estimate of the intervention effect as mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any RCTs which were eligible for inclusion in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.