Chen ST, Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla – a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:186-215 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3
Brånemark PI. The Zygomaticus Fixture: Clinical Procedures. Nobel Biocare AB. 1998;
Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Garcia R A prospective clinical study on titanium implants in the zygomatic arch for prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with a follow-up of 6 months to 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006; 8:114-122 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2006.00009.x
Tuminelli FJ, Walter LR, Neugarten J, Bedrossian E. Immediate loading of zygomatic implants: a systematic review of implant survival, prosthesis survival and potential complications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10:79-87
Polido WD, Machado-Fernandez A, Lin WS, Aghaloo T. Indications for zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00480-4
Alfenas E, Silva I, Oliveira D Intraoral and facial rehabilitation retained with zygomatic implants and magnets after complete resection of the maxilla, lip and nose: a clinical report. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023; 15:e695-e699 https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.60659
Topilow N, Chen Y, Capo H, Tse DT. Extraocular muscle injury in zygomatic implant placement: a case report, review of the literature, and simple maneuver for avoidance. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 78:1328-1333 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.04.027
Bedrossian E, Bedrossian EA. Prevention and the management of complications using the zygoma implant: a review and clinical experiences. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018; 33:e135-e145 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6539
Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013; 17:81-93 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-012-0331-z
Brennand Roper M, Vissink A, Dudding T Long-term treatment outcomes with zygomatic implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00479-x
Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004; 38:70-85 https://doi.org/10.1080/02844310310023918
Bothur S, Jonsson G, Sandahl L. Modified technique using multiple zygomatic implants in reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18:902-904
Wang F, Monje A, Lin GH Reliability of four zygomatic implant-supported prostheses for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30:293-298 https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3691
Rigolizzo MB, Camilli JA, Francischone CE Zygomatic bone: anatomic bases for osseointegrated implant anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20:441-447
Takamaru N, Nagai H, Ohe G Measurement of the zygomatic bone and pilot hole technique for safer insertion of zygomaticus implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45:104-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.07.015
Hung KF, Ai QY, Fan SC Measurement of the zygomatic region for the optimal placement of quad zygomatic implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19:841-848 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12524
Bertos Quílez J, Guijarro-Martínez R, Aboul-Hosn Centenero S, Hernández-Alfaro F. Virtual quad zygoma implant placement using cone beam computed tomography: sufficiency of malar bone volume, intraosseous implant length, and relationship to the sinus according to the degree of alveolar bone atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47:252-261 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.07.004
Wang H, Hung K, Zhao K Anatomical analysis of zygomatic bone in ectodermal dysplasia patients with oligodontia. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21:310-316 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12731
Duarte LR, Filho HN, Francischone CE 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; 9:186-196 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2007.00046.x
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; 3:323-334
Wang H, Hung K, Zhao K Anatomical analysis of zygomatic bone in ectodermal dysplasia patients with oligodontia. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21:310-316 https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12731
This article explores the considerations and factors that implant dentists may use to decide whether the placement of zygomatic implants is necessary, and if so, the potential considerations in planning for them within the zygomatic bone. A novel treatment planning tool has been presented, the Zygomatic Bone Zone index, to improve the surgical placement of zygomatic implants, to help reduce complications and to allow for further placement within the zygomatic bone in the future.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: It is important for clinicians to be aware of treatment modalities that might be of benefit to some patients.
Article
The minimum amount of bone required for a dental implant is a relevant topic, not just for implant dentists, but also for general dentists, oral surgeons, prosthodontists, periodontists and any other health professional who provides treatment planning advice to patients about implants.
The minimum height of vertical bone required for the placement of dental implants in the posterior maxilla was originally defined by the Sinus Consensus Conference in 1996.1 The consensus stated that a residual bone height inferior to the sinus floor of 3 mm or less is best treated with a lateral sinus graft approach, with a delay in implant placement. In 2008, 2011 and 2016, the International Team for Implantology (ITI) clarified this position, stating that a residual height of bone inferior to the sinus of 4–6 mm justifies the provision of a direct lateral sinus graft, with simultaneous implant placement.2 In 2013, the ITI considered that a minimum of 1 mm of bone circumferentially around the planned implant was required before considering bone grafts.3 This would equate to a ridge width of 5 mm for an implant that is 3 mm wide.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
