Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–48 months follow‐up study

Malevez, Chantal; Abarca, Marcelo; Durdu, Françoise F.; Daelemans, Philippe

doi:10.1046/j.1600-0501.2003.00985.x

Cited by 159 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(20)(21)(22)(23)10) Thus, technique and procedures mentioned here represent tendencies to optimize the good results obtained with this dedicated system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some examples of late complication are: loss of fixation or osseointegration, bucco sinusal communication, fenestration of the buccal mucosa, chronic sinusitis and sinus pathologies, palatal emergency of fixations, mucositis and peri-implantitis. (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14) Recent systematic review studies reported the survival and presence of complications related of zygomatic fixation. (15) They conclude that the studies with a high level of evidence are scarce.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zygomatic implant: Late complications in a period of 12 years of experience

Filho¹,

Amaral²,

Curra³

et al. 2017

Rev. Clin. Periodoncia Implantol. Rehabil. Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Zygomatic implants (ZI) constitute a suitable alternative for treating severe maxillary atrophy. However, a large number of complications associated with ZI have been reported in the literature. This paper presents the late complications associated with ZI during 12 years of experience in the same institution. Materials and methods All cases of ZI from 2000 to 2013 were retrospectively evaluated and the major complications relating to this type of rehabilitation were selected to report. Results The major complications found were: loss of implant, loss of osseointegration, bucco-sinusal communication, fenestration of alveolar mucosa, sinus pathology, and emergency palate fixations. Conclusion The clinical experience of the dental surgeon is critical in the success of zygomatic fixation. Furthermore, there should be careful planning of rehabilitation to reduce the rate of complications.

show abstract

“…(20)(21)(22)(23)10) Thus, technique and procedures mentioned here represent tendencies to optimize the good results obtained with this dedicated system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Zygomatic implant: Late complications in a period of 12 years of experience

Filho¹,

Amaral²,

Curra³

et al. 2017

Rev. Clin. Periodoncia Implantol. Rehabil. Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 Zigomatik implantlar geleneksel implantlarda karşılaştırıldığında daha yüksek başarı yüzdesi gösterirler, ancak uygulama zorluğu vardır, ek bir maliyet gerektirirler. 22,23 Uchida ve arkadaşları zigomatik implant yerleştirilmesi amacıyla kadavralar da bulunan zigomatik ve maksiller kemikler üzerinde ölçümler yapmışlardır. Elde etmiş oldukları bulgulara göre hastaya 3.75 mm çapında zigomatik implant yerleştirilmek isteniyorsa zigomatik kemikte 5.75 mm mevcut kemik kalınlığı bulunmalıdır.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Premaksi̇lla İle Tek Tarafli Maksi̇ller Defektli̇ Rezeksi̇yon Obturatörleri̇ni̇n Üç Boyutlu Sonlu Elemanlar Stres Anali̇z Yöntemi̇yle Değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇

Akay¹,

Karakış²,

Yaluğ³

2015

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to analyze comperatively the properties of functional load and stres distribution by using Aramany Class IV obturator protheses with/without zygomatic implants. Material and Methods: A 3-D solid model of an Aramany Class IV maxillary resection case and it's prosthesis was constructed. 150 N vertical force was loaded by first molar teeth. Simulated occlusal loading was applied on three different points. First loading was applied to the defected side, second was applied to the contralateral side and third one was applied to both. Qualitative analysis was based on the scale of maximum and minimum principle stress in the bone were investigated in Algor(Fempro, USA) programme Results: Maximum and minimum principal stresses in bone under different loading were illustrated with figures and color scales. Obtained numerical datas was represented in graphics. Conclusion: Placing a zygomatic implant to the defected area decreased the stresses occured in the bone. Zygomatic implant is an alternative treatment option for Aramany class IV obturator protheses

show abstract

“…The points for implant insertion proposed by Jensen et al are in the mid-lateral region of the zygomatic bone and the zygomatic arch; clinically this direction has limited use compared to the anteroposterior or inferosuperior direction in the body of the zygomatic bone (Palmer et al;Boudard et al, 2001). The body of the zygomatic bone has been used for the installation of different types of implants (Malevez et al, 2004) with good clinical results. In this way, our analysis was conducted in the anteroposterior direction, presenting distances of 12 mm and 10 mm, which makes it possible to place conventional implants with no major problems.…”

Section: Bone Widthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Craniofacial Morphometry for Craniofacial Implant

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY:Craniofacial implants are being increasingly used to treat patients with sequelae of oncological resections, trauma, and congenital deficiencies, among other issues. The aim of this investigation was to establish the minimum and maximum bone dimensions present in the most used places for the insertion of craniofacial implants. A descriptive study was designed analyzing 40 human skulls using cone-beam computed tomography; in the volumetric reconstruction the points most often used in clinical investigations for the insertion of implants were selected, representing the orbital, perinasal, zygomatic bone and periauricular regions, measuring the distance between the cortical bones on the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; comparisons between gender and with other investigations with a similar aim were also made. In the supraorbital area, values of 7.92±1.82 mm were found and in the lateral area values of 7.54±0.98 mm, allowing the placement of implants 5 or 6 mm in length. In the area of the zygomatic bone, dimensions of 10.4±2.35 mm were obtained, allowing the placement of implants 8 mm in length. In the periauricular area values were obtained of 2.93±0.55 mm in the superior region and 3.1±0.7 mm in the inferior region, whereas in the perinasal area implants 4 mm in length can be placed. We concluded that the craniomaxillofacial bone structure presents acceptable widths for the installation of implants; the periauricular region presents lower dimensions, with the possibility of intracranial communication in areas above the external auditory meatus.

show abstract

Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–48 months follow‐up study

Cited by 159 publications

References 13 publications

Zygomatic implant: Late complications in a period of 12 years of experience

Zygomatic implant: Late complications in a period of 12 years of experience

Premaksi̇lla İle Tek Tarafli Maksi̇ller Defektli̇ Rezeksi̇yon Obturatörleri̇ni̇n Üç Boyutlu Sonlu Elemanlar Stres Anali̇z Yöntemi̇yle Değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇

Craniofacial Morphometry for Craniofacial Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About