Osseous Health of Zygomatic Implant in Three Years -A Retrospective Evaluation
Abstract:
Zygoma implants may be used when maxillary bone quality or
quantity is inadequate for the placement of regular dental implants. The main
indication for zygomatic implants – posterior maxillary support in patients who
are completely edentulous with significant sinus pneumatization and severe
posterior alveolar ridge resorption has remained unchanged. This research aims
to investigate the osseous health of zygomatic implants three years
post-implantation, shedding light on the stability, integration, and potential
complications associated with these unique dental prosthetics. Zygomatic
implants were placed in patients' data collected from DIAS (Dental Information
Archival System). From 2020 to 2023 and 30 patients were collected. The bone
loss was measured 2mm away from the implant and 2 mm towards the implant from
the alveolar ridge margin to the hard palate. The collected data were analyzed. The comparison between the Noble and
Neodent Groups shows no significant differences in bone loss outcomes. Although
the Noble Group is older (mean age 48.7 years) compared to the younger Neodent
Group (mean age 26.71 years), age does not significantly impact bone loss (p =
0.412). Both groups have similar sex distributions (p = 0.276). Immediate bone
loss rates are comparable (90.7% for Noble vs. 86.7% for Neodent, p = 0.434).
After three years, the Noble Group experienced 14.3% bone loss on both sides,
while the Neodent Group had none, but these differences are not statistically
significant (p = 0.361). Total immediate bone loss is the same in both groups
(85.7%, p = 0.546), and total bone loss after three years is 28.6% for Noble
and none for Neodent, with no significant difference. Overall, the type of
group does not significantly affect bone loss outcomes. Despite variations in
age and bone loss percentages, these factors do not significantly impact the
results. Thus, the type of group does not appear to influence bone loss significantly,
suggesting that other factors, like systemic disorders, may be more relevant in
determining bone loss outcomes.
References:
[1].
Narde, J., Ganapathy, D., &
Pandurangan, K. K., 2024, Evaluation of the success of autogenous block
grafting in atrophic maxillary and mandibular ridges prior to and after implant
placement. Cureus, 16(2), e53829.
[2]. Shukri, N.
M. M., Duraisamy, R., Balasubramaniam, A., & Ganapathy, D., 2023,
Evaluation of implant and prosthesis survival rates based on crestal bone loss.
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, 33(2), 1-14.
[3].
Shanmugam, R., Thangavelu, L., Duraisamy,
R., & Ganapathy, D., 2024, Systematic review on hydroxyapatite and chitosan
combination-coated titanium implants on osseointegration. World Journal of
Dentistry, 15(1), 79-86.
[4].
Brennand Roper, M., Vissink, A., Dudding,
T., Pollard, A., Gareb, B., Malevez, C., et al., 2023, Long-term treatment
outcomes with zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International
Journal of Implant Dentistry, 9(1), 21.
[5].
Goker, F., Grecchi, F., Grecchi, E., Del
Fabbro, M., Agliardi, E. L., Buccellato, F. R. P., et al., 2022, Clinical
outcomes of fully and partially threaded zygomatic implants in a cohort of
patients with minimum 7.5-year follow-up. European Review for Medical and
Pharmacological Sciences, 26(3 Suppl), 35-44.
[6].
Beri, A., Pisulkar, S. G., Mundada, B.,
Bansod, A., Deshmukh, S., & Bhardwaj, P., 2024, Revolutionizing maxillary
rehabilitation: Zygomatic implants addressing severe alveolar atrophy. Cureus, 16(5).
[7].
Bhalerao, A., Marimuthu, M., Wahab, A.,
& Ayoub, A., 2024, The clinical evaluation of the dynamically navigated
flapless placement of zygomatic implants: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Oral &
Maxillofacial Implants, 39(1).
[8]. Yu, Z., Guo, H., Han, W., Jiang, X., &
Lin, Y., 2024, Peri‐zygomatic complications on zygomatic implants with or
without penetrating the external surface of zygoma: A 2‐year retrospective
study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and
Related Research, 26(1), 197-205.
[9]. Zielinski, R., Okulski, J., Simka, W.,
& Kozakiewicz, M., 2023, The zygomatic anatomy-guided approach, zygomatic
orbital floor classification, and ORIS criteria—A 10-year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Medical Research,
12(20).
[10].
Bolzoni, A. R., Zingari, F., Gallo, F.,
Goker, F., Beretta, P., Del Fabbro, M., et al., 2023, Zygomatic implant guided
rehabilitation based on inverted support technique: a pilot study. European
Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 27(3 Suppl), 77-91.
[11].
Morris, G. A., Steinberg, M. J., &
Drago, C., 2023, Full arch immediate occlusal loading using site-specific
implants: A clinical series of 10 patients (13 arches). Journal of Prosthodontics, 32(3), 204-213.
[12]. Sri, H., Paramasivam, A.,
Maiti, S., Rajaraman, V., & Ganapathy, D., 2022. Differentially expressed genes in patients with
peri-implantitis. Journal of Coastal Life
Medicine, 10, 305–311. Available from August 22, 2022.
[13]. Pu, L. F., Tang, C. B., Shi, W. B., Wang, D. M.,
Wang, Y. Q., Sun, C., et al., 2014, Age-related changes in anatomic bases for
the insertion of zygomatic implants, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 43(11), 1367-1372.
[14]. Aparicio, C., Manresa, C., Francisco, K.,
Ouazzani, W., Claros, P., Potau, J. M., et al., 2014, The long-term use of
zygomatic implants: a 10-year clinical and radiographic report, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related
Research, 16(3), 447-459.
[15]. Borgonovo, A., Grandi, T., Vassallo, S., &
Signorini, L., 2021, Extrasinus zygomatic implants for the immediate
rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: 1-year postloading results from a
multicenter prospective cohort study, Journal
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 79(2), 356-365.
[16]. Davó, R., & Pons, O., 2015, 5-year outcome
of cross-arch prostheses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic
implants: A prospective case series, European
Journal of Oral Implantology, 8(2), 169-174.
[17]. Mathevosyan, D., Hovhannisyan, S., Mashinyan,
K., Khachatryan, L., Badalyan, A., & Hakobyan, G., 2024, Prosthetic
rehabilitation of patients with maxillary oncology defects using zygomatic
implants. International Journal of
Implant Dentistry, 10(1), 31.
[18]. Rodrigues, A., Abi-Nader, S., Durand, R.,
Rompré, P., Janati, A. I., Atsu, S., Morris, M., & Emami, E., 2024,
Effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation for the atrophic
edentulous maxilla: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 146.
[19]. Şahin, O., 2024, Treatment of severely atrophic
maxilla by using zygomatic, pterygoid, and transnasal implants. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 35(2),
e145-146.
[20]. Rajasekar, A., & Varghese, S. S., 2023,
Bacterial profile associated with peri-implantitis: A systematic review. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical
Implants, 33(3).
[21]. Shamaa, A., & Chaudary, M., 2022, Prevalence
of peri-implantitis using intraoral and extraoral imaging in patients visiting
a dental hospital. Research Journal of
Science and Technology, 14(4), 219–225.
[22]. Labh, A. K., Bennis, M. A., & Mani, G., 2021, Prevalence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis among implant patients: A dental university-based study. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, 31(1).
