Length determination of zygomatic implants using tridimensional computed tomography

Clinical efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery: A systematic scoping review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital technology can improve the success of zygomatic implant (ZI) surgery. However, the reliability and efficacy of computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (CAZIS) need further analysis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the placement accuracy, implant survival, and complications of CAZIS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of English and Mandarin Chinese publications up to May 2023 was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Wanfang database. The nonpeer-reviewed literature was searched in the trial register (clinicaltrials.gov). Clinical studies and cadaver studies on CAZIS were included. After data extraction and collection, the findings were critically reviewed, analyzed, interpreted, and discussed.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. After excluding publications with duplicate data, retaining the most recent, 28 articles were included in this scoping review. Of these, 18 were on static computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (sCAZIS), 8 on dynamic computer-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (dCAZIS), and 2 on robot-assisted zygomatic implant surgery (rAZIS). Excluding the outliers, the mean deviations of ZIs in the sCAZIS group (with 8 articles reporting implant placement accuracy, 183 ZIs involved) were: 1.15 ±1.37 mm (coronal deviation), 2.29 ±1.95 mm (apical deviation), and 3.32 ±3.36 degrees (angular deviation). The mean deviations of dCAZIS (3 articles, 251 ZIs) were: 1.60 ±0.74 mm (coronal), 2.27 ±1.05 mm (apical), and 2.89 ±1.69 degrees (angular). The mean deviations of rAZIS (2 articles, 5 ZIs) were: 0.82 ±0.21 mm (coronal), 1.25 ±0.52 mm (apical), and 1.46 ±0.35 degrees (angular). Among the CAZIS reported in the literature, the implant survival rate was high (96.3% for sCAZIS, 98.2% for dCAZIS, and 100% for rAZIS, specified in 14 of 21 clinical studies). The incidence of complications was low, but, because of the few relevant studies (4/21 specified), valid conclusions regarding complications could not be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

CAZIS has demonstrated clinical efficacy with high implant survival rates and placement accuracy. Of the 3 guided approaches, rAZIS showed the smallest 3-dimensional deviation.

Prosthetic improvement of pronounced buccally positioned zygomatic implants: a clinical report

This report presents a prosthetic technique for the improvement of surgically positioned, buccally placed zygomatic implants with the use of custom abutments for improved retention screw position and an esthetic implant reconstruction. The patient presented four zygomatic implants with pronounced buccal inclination. The anterior implants were inclined toward the location where the anterior artificial teeth should be placed during rehabilitation. As the manufacturer does not provide angulated abutments, we attempted the waxing and overcasting of a prosthetic abutment, repositioning the access holes of the prosthetic screws to a more palatal position. This clinical report demonstrates that abutment customization could be an interesting way to relocate the access holes of the prosthetic screws in cases of zygomatic implants with pronounced buccal inclination.

Determination of the length of zygomatic implants through computed tomography: establishing a protocol

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to establish and verify an examination protocol using CT to estimate the length of zygomatic implants, thus rendering the surgical process safer and more predictable, and exposing the patient to a minimal level of radiation.

METHODS

Paracoronal CT scan was carried out on ten dry human crania (n = 20) and the zygomatic implant sites were measured (L(CT)) bilaterally. A standard surgical zygomatic implant placement procedure was carried out and the actual lengths (L(Real)) and clinical lengths (L(Clin)) determined.

RESULTS

The averages of the L(CT), L(Clin) and L(Real) were 45.73 +/- 4.82 mm, 42.63 +/- 4.33 mm, and 44.73 +/- 4.53 mm, respectively. Student's t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between the L(Real) and L(CT) averages (P = 0.1532), whereas the L(Real) and L(Clin) averages were statistically different (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed protocol proved to be precise and efficacious in the determination of zygomatic implant length, with the advantage to the patient of a relatively low level of exposure to radiation due to the small quantity of tomographic slices used. Although there were no major repercussions, the clinical probe in the zygomatic implant kit commonly used in this surgical procedure proved to be a rather imprecise tool.