Evaluation of surgical techniques in survival rate and complications of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review

Peer W Kämmerer, Shengchi Fan, Carlos Aparicio, Edmond Bedrossian, Rubén Davó, Dean Morton, Gerry M Raghoebar, Sepehr Zarrine, Bilal Al-Nawas, Peer W Kämmerer, Shengchi Fan, Carlos Aparicio, Edmond Bedrossian, Rubén Davó, Dean Morton, Gerry M Raghoebar, Sepehr Zarrine, Bilal Al-Nawas

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the outcome [zygomatic implant (ZI) survival] and complications of the original surgical technique (OST) and an Anatomy-Guided approach (AGA) in the placement of ZI in patients with severely atrophic maxillae.

Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search from January 2000 to August 2022. The inclusion criteria were articles reporting at least five patients with severely atrophic edentulous maxilla undergoing placement OST and/or AGA, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Number of patients, defect characteristics, number of ZI, implant details, surgical technique, survival rate, loading protocol, prosthetic rehabilitation, complications, and follow-up period were compared.

Results: Twenty-four studies comprised 2194 ZI in 918 patients with 41 failures. The ZI survival rate was 90.3-100% in OST and 90.4-100% in AGA. Probability of complications with ZI with OST was as follows: sinusitis, 9.53%; soft tissue infection, 7.50%; paresthesia, 10.78%; oroantral fistulas, 4.58%; and direct surgical complication, 6.91%. With AGA, the presenting complications were as follows: sinusitis, 4.39%; soft tissue infection, 4.35%; paresthesia, 0.55%; oroantral fistulas, 1.71%; and direct surgical complication, 1.60%. The prevalence of immediate loading protocol was 22.3% in OST and 89.6% in the AGA. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, statistical comparison was only possible after the descriptive analysis.

Conclusions: Based on the current systematic review, placing ZI in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae rehabilitation with the OST and AGA is associated with a high implant survival rate and surgical complications within a minimum of 6 months follow-up. Complications, including sinusitis and soft tissue infection around the implant, are the most common. The utilization of immediate loading protocol is more observed in AGA than in OST.

Keywords: Complications; Maxillary atrophy; Maxillary defect; Survival; Technique; Zygomatic implant.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2023. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The original surgical technique described by Branemark (OST) begins with a Le Fort I-type incision. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap is elevated to provide direct visualization of the trajectory of the implant from the premolar/molar region of the alveolar bone to the zygoma body. The dissection is continued from the lateral wall of the maxilla towards the zygomatic bone to allow for increased visibility of the zygomatic region and the infraorbital nerve. A lateral window of approximately 10 * 5 mm is then made into the lateral aspect of the maxillary sinus using a round bur (A). Once the membrane has been exposed, it should be carefully elevated medially and superiorly. The entrance of the ZI is marked with a round bur on the palatal side of the crest. The drilling sequence starts at the alveolar ridge, passing through the maxillary sinus, and the drill is advanced to reach the body of the zygoma to the desired emergence level (B) [2] (Figure provided by Yiqun Wu)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
For Anatomy-Guided as an evolution of the extra-sinus approach, the relationship of the zygomatic buttress–alveolar crest area is classified into five different types. In this technique, the path of the ZI body can range from total intra-sinus (ZAGA 0) to the wall of the maxilla (ZAGA 1 & 2) to total extra-maxillary sinus (ZAGA 3 & 4). The curvature of the external wall of the maxillary buttress determines the final relationship between the implant and the anterior maxillary wall. For surgical access, a slightly beveled palatal incision starts from the posterior buccal aspect of the maxillary tuberosity to the midline. According to the prosthodontics aspect, the starting point (implant head emergence) should be at or close to the top of the alveolar ridge crest. When the residual bone at the sinus floor level has adequate thickness and width (minimum: 4 mm height, 6 mm width) in a patient without a history of periodontitis, the position of the entry point should be close to the middle portion of the crest with an intra-sinus starting path of the implant if the maxillary wall is flat or convex. When the crestal bone height or thickness is inadequate, the alveolar entrance point should be shifted to the buccal, regardless of the maxillary wall curvature. Based on the maxillary wall concavity and the height of the new bone, the osteotomy is shaped like a tunnel or canal [16, 22]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Distribution of the type of ZAGA classification between eligible studies [14, 37, 39, 41, 43] and ZAGA studies [15, 46]. ZAGA-A evaluated the anterior ZI’s distribution in the ZAGA classification, and ZAGA-P evaluated the posterior ZI’s distribution [46]

References

    1. Bedrossian E. Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with the zygoma concept: a 7-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(6):1213–1221.
    1. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B, Engstrand P, Nannmark U. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38(2):70–85. doi: 10.1080/02844310310023918.
    1. Bedrossian E, Rangert B, Stumpel L, Indersano T. Immediate function with the zygomatic implant: a graftless solution for the patient with mild to advanced atrophy of the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:937–942.
    1. Chow J, Hui E, Lee PK, et al. Zygomatic implants—protocol for immediate occlusal loading: a preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64:804–811. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.01.021.
    1. Davó R, David L. Quad zygoma: technique and realities. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2019;31:285–297. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2018.12.006.
    1. Al-Nawas B, Wegener J, Bender C, Wagner W. Critical soft tissue parameters of the zygomatic implant. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:497–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00505.x.
    1. Davo R, Malevez C, Rojas J. Immediate function in the atrophic maxilla using zygoma implants: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(6 Suppl):S44–51. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60007-9.
    1. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, Codesal M, Barluenga N, Manresa C, Franch M. Extrasinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new surgical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(1):55–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00130.x.
    1. Maló P, Nobre MDA, Lopes I. A new approach to rehabilitate the severely atrophic maxilla using extra-maxillary anchored implants in immediate function: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(5):37–46. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60237-1.
    1. Bedrossian E. Zygomatic implants operative consideration to minimize technical errors, complications, and their management. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2021;29(2):277–289. doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.04.005.
    1. Stella JP, Warner MR. Sinus slot technique for simplification and improved orientation of zygomaticus dental implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:889–893.
    1. Boyes-Varley JG, Howes DG, Lownie JF, Blackbeard GA. Surgical modifications to the Brånemark zygomaticus protocol in the treatment of the severely resorbed maxilla: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(2):232–237.
    1. Bedrossian E. Rescue implant concept: the expanded use of the zygoma implant in the graftless solutions. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2011;23(2):257–276. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2011.01.009.
    1. Wang F, Tao B, Shen Y, Li C, Huang W, Sun Y, Wu Y. A single-arm clinical trial investigating the feasibility of the zygomatic implant quad approach for Cawood and Howell Class 4 edentulous maxilla: an option for immediate loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021;23(5):800–808. doi: 10.1111/cid.13046.
    1. 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(3):269–275.
    1. Aparicio C, Polido WD, Zarrinkelk HM. Thfe zygoma anatomy-guided approach for placement of zygomatic implants. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2021;29(2):203–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.05.004.
    1. Moraschini V, de Queiroz TR, Sartoretto SC, de Almeida DCF, Calasans-Maia MD, Louro RS. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants compared to conventional implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 5 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(1):177–189. doi: 10.1111/cid.13153.
    1. Gutiérrez Muñoz D, Obrador Aldover C, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, González Menéndez H, Lorrio Castro J, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Montiel-Company JM, Hernández MS. Survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology (Basel) 2021;10(7):601.
    1. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Aparicio A, Nunes J, Claros P, Potau JM. Zygomatic implants placed using the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach versus the classical technique: a proposed system to report rhinosinusitis diagnosis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(5):627–642. doi: 10.1111/cid.12047.
    1. Tavelli C, Tedesco A. Survival and complication rate of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. J Oral Implantol. 2022 doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-22-00008.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. Aparicio C, Olivo A, de Paz V, Kraus D, Luque MM, Crooke E, Simon P, Simon M, Ferreira J, Serrano AS, Ilg JP, Bilbao A, Fernandez A, Guitián P, Neugarten J. The zygoma anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA) for rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla. Clin Dent Rev. 2022;6(1):1–25. doi: 10.1007/s41894-022-00116-7.
    1. Davo R, Pons O, Rojas J, Carpio E. Immediate function of four zygomatic implants: a 1-year report of a prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3(4):323–334.
    1. Davó R, Pons O. Prostheses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic implants: a 3-year prospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013;6(3):263–269.
    1. Davó R, Pons O. 5-year outcome of cross-arch prostheses supported by four immediately loaded zygomatic implants: a prospective case series. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8(2):169–174.
    1. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Ouazzani W, Claros P, Potau JM, Aparicio A. The long-term use of zygomatic implants: a 10-year clinical and radiographic report. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):447–459. doi: 10.1111/cid.12007.
    1. Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Henry PJ, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, Chiapasco M, Gynther G, Finne K, Higuchi KW, Isaksson S, Kahnberg KE, Malevez C, Neukam FW, Sevetz E, Urgell JP, Widmark G, Bolind P. A clinical evaluation of the Zygoma fixture: one year of follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;62(9 Suppl 2):22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.06.030.
    1. Kahnberg KE, Henry PJ, Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, Chiapasco M, Gynther G, Finne K, Higuchi KW, Isaksson S, Malevez C, Neukam FW, Sevetz E, Jr, Urgell JP, Widmark G, Bolind P. Clinical evaluation of the zygoma implant: 3-year follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(10):2033–2038. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.05.013.
    1. Aleksandrowicz P, Kusa-Podkańska M, Grabowska K, Kotuła L, Szkatuła-Łupina A, Wysokińska-Miszczuk J. Extra-sinus zygomatic implants to avoid chronic sinusitis and prosthetic arch malposition: 12 years of experience. J Oral Implantol. 2019;45(1):73–78. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00034.
    1. Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Abrahamsson P, Sennerby L. Evaluation of 31 zygomatic implants and 74 regular dental implants used in 16 patients for prosthetic reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with cross-arch fixed bridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(3):159–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00060.x.
    1. Davó R, Malevez C, López-Orellana C, Pastor-Beviá F, Rojas J. Sinus reactions to immediately loaded zygoma implants: a clinical and radiological study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1(1):53–60.
    1. Davó R. Zygomatic implants placed with a two-stage procedure: a 5-year retrospective study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(2):115–124.
    1. Duarte LR, Filho HN, Francischone CE, Peredo LG, Brånemark PI. The establishment of a protocol for the total rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae employing four zygomatic fixtures in an immediate loading system–a 30-month clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2007;9(4):186–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00046.x.
    1. Fernández H, Gómez-Delgado A, Trujillo-Saldarriaga S, Varón-Cardona D, Castro-Núñez J. Zygomatic implants for the management of the severely atrophied maxilla: a retrospective analysis of 244 implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(5):887–891. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2013.12.029.
    1. Malevez C, Abarca M, Durdu F, Daelemans P. Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–48 months follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(1):18–22. doi: 10.1046/j.1600-0501.2003.00985.x.
    1. Stiévenart M, Malevez C. Rehabilitation of totally atrophied maxilla by means of four zygomatic implants and fixed prosthesis: a 6–40-month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(4):358–363. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.01.009.
    1. Aparicio C, Polido WD, Chow J, Davó R, Al-Nawas B. Round and flat zygomatic implants: effectiveness after a 1-year follow-up non-interventional study. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s40729-022-00412-8.
    1. Atalay B, Doğanay Ö, Saraçoğlu BK, Bultan Ö, Hafiz G. Clinical evaluation of zygomatic implant-supported fixed and removable prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(1):185–189. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003204.
    1. Chana H, Smith G, Bansal H, Zahra D. A retrospective cohort study of the survival rate of 88 zygomatic implants placed over an 18-year period. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):461–470. doi: 10.11607/jomi.6790.
    1. Davó R, Bankauskas S, Laurincikas R, Koçyigit ID, Mate Sanchez de Val JE. Clinical performance of zygomatic implants-retrospective multicenter study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):480. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020480.
    1. Fernández-Ruiz JA, Sánchez-Siles M, Guerrero-Sánchez Y, Pato-Mourelo J, Camacho-Alonso F. Evaluation of quality of life and satisfaction in patients with fixed prostheses on zygomatic implants compared with the all-on-four concept: a prospective randomized clinical study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3426. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18073426.
    1. Nave PD, Queralt AV. Zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae: a retrospective study on survival rate and biologic complications of 206 implants with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(6):1177–1186. doi: 10.11607/jomi.8448.
    1. Peñarrocha-Diago M, Bernabeu-Mira JC, Fernández-Ruíz A, Aparicio C, Peñarrocha-Oltra D. Bone regeneration and soft tissue enhancement around zygomatic implants: retrospective case series. Materials (Basel) 2020;13(7):1577. doi: 10.3390/ma13071577.
    1. Wu Y, Tao B, Lan K, Shen Y, Huang W, Wang F. Reliability and accuracy of dynamic navigation for zygomatic implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33(4):362–376. doi: 10.1111/clr.13897.
    1. Zhao K, Lian M, Fan S, Huang W, Wang F, Wu Y. Long-term Schneiderian membrane thickness changes following zygomatic implant placement: a retrospective radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(7):679–687. doi: 10.1111/clr.13259.
    1. Aparicio C, Polido WD, Chow J, David L, Davo R, De Moraes EJ, Fibishenko A, Ando M, Mclellan G, Nicolopoulos C, Pikos MA, Zarrinkelk H, Balshi TJ, Peñarrocha M. Identification of the pathway and appropriate use of four zygomatic implants in the atrophic maxilla: a cross-sectional study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(4):807–817. doi: 10.11607/jomi.8603.
    1. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: an updated systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(10):1949–1964. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.06.166.
    1. Solà Pérez A, Pastorino D, Aparicio C, Pegueroles Neyra M, Khan RS, Wright S, Ucer C. Success rates of zygomatic implants for the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Dent J (Basel) 2022;10(8):151. doi: 10.3390/dj10080151.
    1. Gracher AHP, de Moura MB, da Silva PP, Thomé G, Padovan LEM, Trojan LC. Full arch rehabilitation in patients with atrophic upper jaws with zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s40729-021-00297-z.
    1. Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;17(2):81–93. doi: 10.1007/s10006-012-0331-z.
    1. Molinero-Mourelle P, Baca-Gonzalez L, Gao B, Saez-Alcaide LM, Helm A, Lopez-Quiles J. Surgical complications in zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016;21(6):e751–e757.
    1. Aparicio C, López-Piriz R, Albrektsson T. ORIS criteria of success for the zygoma-related rehabilitation: the (revisited) zygoma success code. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020;35(2):366–378. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7488.
    1. Andre A, Dym H. Zygomatic implants: a review of a treatment alternative for the severely atrophic maxilla. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2021;29(2):163–172. doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.04.001.
    1. Rawal S, Balshi T, Jivraj S. Restoration of zygomatic implants. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2021;29(2):291–299. doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.04.006.
    1. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17(4):232–236. doi: 10.1016/S0901-5027(88)80047-X.
    1. Ramezanzade S, Keyhan SO, Tuminelli FJ, Fallahi HR, Yousefi P, Lopez-Lopez J. Dynamic-assisted navigational system in zygomatic implant surgery: a qualitative and quantitative systematic review of current clinical and cadaver studies. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(4):799–812. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.10.009.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera