Clinical outcomes of fully and partially threaded zygomatic implants in a cohort of patients with minimum 7.5-year follow-up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective case series report was to evaluate the results of oral rehabilitation with extra-sinus zygomatic implant surgery with a minimum follow-up of 7.5 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 35 patients with 87 zygomatic implants were included. The mean follow-up period of the patients was 93 months. The zygomatic implant survival and complications were evaluated as criteria for success. RESULTS: There were no implant failures. Overall success rate without complications for zygomatic implant was 88.5%. Complications developed in 4 patients (1 cutaneous fistula and 3 mucositis). According to the results on an implant basis, patients with previously failed conventional implants had greater probability of complications. Patients with quad zygomatic implants had higher incidence of complications than those with two zygomatic implants. Fully threaded implant design was associated with higher incidence of mucositis than partially threaded design. No relation was found between implant success and smoking, prosthesis type, and antagonist dentition. When conducting the analysis using the patient as unit, only the antagonist dentition showed significant difference, the worst outcome being associated with the Toronto resin prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Zygomatic implants can be considered as a safe alternative to conventional implant insertions and bone grafting procedures in oral rehabilitation of patients with severely atrophic maxillary bone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".