Evaluation of 31 Zygomatic Implants and 74 Regular Dental Implants Used in 16 Patients for Prosthetic Reconstruction of the Atrophic Maxilla with Cross-Arch Fixed Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of a specially designed implant to be anchored in the zygomatic body has been proposed as an alternative to bone grafting in the prosthetic rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla. However, few studies have evaluated the long-term stability and soft tissue conditions of zygomatic implants. PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical performance of zygomatic implants when used for prosthetic reconstruction of atrophic maxillae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients consecutively treated with 31 zygomatic implants and 74 additional dental implants from 1998 to 2002 were retrospectively evaluated and prospectively followed using a standardized clinical and radiographic study design. Data were collected from the time of implant treatment until the last follow-up RESULTS: The follow-up period ranged from 9 to 69 months from the day of implant treatment, with a mean of 46.4 months (3 years, 10 months). Three (9.7%) of the 31 zygomatic implants were surgically removed because of recurrent sinusitis. Three (4.1%) of the 71 additional dental implants failed to integrate. Poor oral hygiene and gingivitis were seen at most zygomatic implant sites (10/16). Local infections were observed in 9 of 16 patients. Sinusitis occurred in 6 patients. All patients (16/16) eventually received fixed bridges, which were stable throughout the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed an acceptable outcome with regard to implant and prosthetic survival rates. However, postoperative complications not related to implant and prosthesis stability were frequent. Further investigations of the long-term performance of zygomatic implants and with a focus on soft tissue and maxillary sinus health are needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".