The Long‐Term Use of Zygomatic Implants: A 10‐Year Clinical and Radiographic Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The zygoma implant has been an effective option in the short-term management of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. PURPOSE: To report on long-term outcomes in the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic (ZI) and regular implants (RI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 22 consecutive zygomatic patients in a maintenance program were included. Cumulative survival rate (CSR) of ZI, RI, prostheses, and complications were recorded during, at least, 10 years of loading. Implant mobility was tested using Periotest(®). Sinus health was radiographically and clinically assessed according to Lund-Mackay (L-M) score and Lanza and Kennedy survey, respectively. A satisfaction questionnaire and anatomical measurements were also performed. RESULTS: Patients received 22 prostheses, anchored on 172 implants. Forty-one were ZI. Three RI failed (10 years CSR = 97.71%). Two ZI were partly removed due to perimplant infection (10 years CSR = 95.12%). All patients maintained functional prostheses. One patient fractured framework twice. Loosening or fracturing screws happened in 11 patients. Seven patients fractured occlusal material. Four ZI abutments in two patients were disconnected because of uncomfortable prostheses. Alveolar height at the ZI head level on the right and left sides was 2.64 mm and 2.25 mm, respectively. Mean distance of ZI head center to ridge center, on the right and left sides was 4.54 mm and 5.67 mm, respectively. Mean Periotest values (PTv) of ZI were -4.375 PTv and -4.941 PTv before prostheses placement and after 10 years, respectively. Six patients experienced sinusitis 14-127 months postoperatively. 54.55% of the L-M scores did not present opacification (L-M = 0) in any sinus. Osteomeatal obstruction happened in eight patients (two bilateral). Two (9.09%) were diagnosed with sinusitis. Eighty-four percent reported satisfaction levels above 80%. 31.81% reported maximum satisfaction score (100%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxillae using ZI is a predictable procedure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".