Five-Year Clinical Outcomes of Zygomatic Implants Combined With Patient-Specific PEEK Implants in Severely Resorbed Maxilla: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the 5-year outcomes of maxillary rehabilitation using zygomatic implants combined with patient-specific PEEK facial implants in severely resorbed edentulous ridges without labial support. A retrospective cohort (2017-2019) included 24 patients (mean age 62 ± 7.4 years). All underwent CBCT-based digital planning and received zygomatic implants with a customized PEEK implant extending to the nasal spine. Surgeries were performed by a single surgeon, with immediate loading and definitive prostheses delivered at 4-5 months. Annual clinical and radiographic follow-up continued for 5 years. No zygomatic implant loss or PEEK exposure occurred. Six patients (25%) required connective tissue grafting between years 1-4. Screw loosening occurred in 4 cases, and crown loosening in 1 case. All patients reported esthetic improvement, and 95% reported functional improvement. The combined zygomatic-PEEK approach demonstrated excellent survival, minimal complications, and high patient satisfaction, representing a viable option for severe maxillary resorption without labial support.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".