Extramaxillary Surgical Technique: Clinical Outcome of 352 Patients Rehabilitated with 747 Zygomatic Implants with a Follow‐Up between 6 Months and 7 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of zygomatic implants inserted in immediate function through the extramaxillary technique needs validation. PURPOSE: To report the outcome of rehabilitating 352 patients with complete edentulous atrophied maxillae using 747 zygomatic implants in immediate function inserted through the extramaxillary technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred-fifty-two consecutive edentulous patients with atrophic maxillae were rehabilitated between 2006 and 2012 with 747 zygomatic implants and 795 conventional implants. Implant and prosthetic cumulative survival and success rates were estimated through Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator. Biological and prosthetic complications were recorded after 10 days; 2, 4, and 6 months; and thereafter every 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (12.2%) dropped-out, one patient lost the prosthesis (cumulative survival rate = 99.7%), and four patients lost 7 zygomatic implants, rendering an estimated cumulative survival rate of 98.2% (Kaplan-Meier). Ten patients lost 17 conventional implants (patient-specific and implant-specific cumulative survival rates of 96.7% and 97.9%, respectively). Biological complications were observed in 80 patients (22.7%) and resolved in the majority of situations, rendering an estimated cumulative success rate of 94.4% at 7 years for zygomatic implants (Kaplan-Meier). Mechanical complications occurred in 156 patients (44%), with one-third of these complications occurring in patients diagnosed with bruxism before the rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae with zygomatic implants inserted through the extramaxillary technique in immediate function, alone or in combination with standard implants, is a viable procedure. Until the biomechanical aspects are more predictable and also because of the complexity of the surgical technique, this rehabilitation approach is not ready for every implant clinician to begin using in practice, and prior special training is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".