Immediate/Early Loading of Zygomatic Implants: Clinical Experiences after 2 to 5 Years of Follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional prosthetic treatment of the edentulous and resorbed maxilla with zygomatic implants is a lengthy procedure. Today, immediate/early loading is a clinical reality and it is possible that such protocols could be used also for zygomatic implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to report on the clinical outcomes of immediate/early loading of zygomatic implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of edentulous and severely resorbed maxillary cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 47 zygomatic and 129 regular implants were placed in 25 consecutive patients with total (N = 23) or partial (N = 2) edentulism in the maxilla. The patients had less than 4 mm of available bone height and width distal to the canine pillars. Straight and angulated abutments and impression copings were attached to the implants during surgery. Impressions and bite registrations were made and 19 patients received a bridge within 24 hours and six patients were rehabilitated within 5 days. Screw-retained full arch restorations were used in 23 patients and cemented in 2 patients. The patients were instructed for a soft diet during 4 months. Follow-up controls were performed at 1, 4, and 12 months and thereafter annually. All patients were followed for at least 2 years and up to 5 years in function. RESULTS: All zygomatic implants were stable during the follow-up (cumulative survival rate 100%). One regular implant placed in the pterygoid plate failed after 52 months of loading (cumulative survival rate 99.2%). Apart from fracture of one abutment screw and of anterior teeth in five patients, no other complications were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, it is concluded that immediate/early loading is a viable treatment modality for prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla using zygomatic and conventional implants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".