Clinical outcomes and biological and mechanical complications of immediate fixed prostheses supported by zygomatic implants: A retrospective analysis from a prospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zygomatic implants alone or in combination with conventional implants have been used for severe atrophic maxillary arches. Long-term outcomes of extramaxillary technique need validations. PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes and the prevalence of surgical, biological, and prosthetic complications of implant-fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) supported by zygomatic implants up to 11 years of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental records of 34 subjects treated between October 2008 and June 2019 were reviewed. Patients received an immediate fixed full-arch prosthesis supported solely by zygomatic implants or by a combination of zygomatic and conventional implants. RESULTS: A total of 90 zygomatic implants and 53 standard implants were placed. Up to 11 years of follow-up, two conventional implants were lost, leading to 96.2% success rate for conventional implants and 100% for zygomatic implants. Marginal bone loss for conventional implants averaged 0.85 ± 0.17 mm after the first year and 1.36 ± 0.12 mm after 10 years, resulting in full implant success. No prosthesis was lost. The main surgical complication was the perforations of the Schneiderian membrane, occurring in five patients and in seven sinus cavities. Considering the biological complications, mucositis for standard and zygomatic implants ranged between 21%-35% and 26%-40%, respectively. No peri-implantitis were reported. Soft tissue hypertrophy ranged between 1.8% and 30% for conventional implants and 1.1%-35% for zygomatic implants. Inflammation under the prosthesis ranged between 33% and 50%. For the mechanical complications, abutment loosening was recorded in 5.8% of cases (two patients), tooth debonding and fracture of the prosthesis happened in five subjects (14.7%), and loosening of the prosthetic screws was reported in one patient (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla with zygomatic implants alone or in combination with standard implants could be considered a viable treatment modality.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".