Retrospective Analysis of Zygomatic Implants for Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation


Yalcin M., CAN S., Akbas M., DERGİN G., GARİP H., Aydil B. A. , ...Daha Fazla

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, cilt.35, ss.750-756, 2020 (SCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi) identifier identifier identifier

  • Cilt numarası: 35 Konu: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.11607/jomi.8196
  • Dergi Adı: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.750-756

Özet

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate 141 zygomatic implants for the reconstruction of severely atrophic maxillae. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective case series study, zygomatic implants were placed under general anesthesia. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ASA I or ASA II, age older than 18 years, inadequate bone for restoration with conventional implants, alternative augmentation procedures considered either inappropriate or contraindicated, absence of a medical condition related to implant failure, and providing written consent. Zygomatic implants used in the study consisted of three different brands: NobelZygoma, Southern Implants System, and Implantswiss. Results: The study included 45 patients, in whom 141 zygomatic implants were placed. The mean age of the patients was 51.76 (range: 23 to 72) years. Three patients were rehabilitated with removable prostheses, 19 patients with fixed prostheses, and 23 patients with hybrid prostheses. The overall complication rate was 5.67% (two zygomatic implants developed infection [1.4%], one zygomatic implant developed peri-implantitis [0.7%], three zygomatic implants developed sinusitis [2.1%], and two zygomatic implants showed unsuccessful prosthetic rehabilitation [1.4%]). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 36 months. Conclusion: Clinical complications of zygomatic implants are acceptable, and their survival rates are similar to those of endosteal implants. Zygomatic implants can contribute to prosthetic rehabilitation.