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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses in the atrophic edentulous maxilla often requires a bone augmentation procedure to enable implant placement and integration. However, a rigid anchorage can also be achieved by using so-called zygomatic implants placed in the zygomatic arch in combination with regular implants placed in residual bone. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to report on the clinical outcome of using zygomatic and regular implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely atrophic edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients with severe maxillary atrophy were, during a 5-year period, treated with a total of 69 fixed full-arch prostheses anchored on 435 implants. Of these, 131 were zygomatic implants and 304 were regular implants. Fifty-seven bridges were screw-retained and 12 were cemented. The screw-retained bridges were removed at the examination appointments and each implant was tested for mobility. In addition, the zygomatic implants were subjected to Periotest (Siemens AG, Bensheim, Germany) measurements. The patients had at the time of this report been followed for at least 6 months up to 5 years in loading. RESULTS: Two regular implants failed during the study period giving a cumulative survival rate of 99.0%. None of the zygomatic implants was removed. All patients received and maintained a fixed full-arch bridge during the study. Periotest measurements of zygomatic implants showed a decreased Periotest values value with time, indicating an increased stability. Three patients presented with sinusitis 14-27 months postoperatively, which could be resolved with antibiotics. Loosening of the zygomatic implant gold screws was recorded in nine patients. Fracture of one gold screw as well as the prosthesis occurred twice in one patient. Fracture of anterior prosthetic teeth was experienced in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study show that the use of zygomatic and regular implants represents a predictable alternative to bone grafting in the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".