Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S319
Submitted: 01-06-2022
Published: 01-06-2022

Major clinical results of virtual zygomatic implant and assessment of the risk of bias: a systematic review

UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / Dr. Lucas Furtado Clinic, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / Ms Odontologia, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Zygomatic implant Virtual zygomatic implant Quad zygomatic implant Clinical trials

Abstract

Introduction: In the context of implantology and severe resorption, zygomatic implants (ZI) are indicated and the procedures can be completed with the placement of a custom-made provisional prosthesis, reducing surgical time and optimizing results. Digital (virtual) optimizations for the ZI were developed in computerized radiology machines that allowed improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Objective: It was carried out a systematic review of the main considerations and clinical outcomes of using digital tools for the optimization of the virtual zygomatic implant. Methods: The rules of the Systematic Review-PRISMA Platform were followed. The research was carried out from January 2022 to April 2022 and developed based on Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Scielo, and Google Scholar. The quality of the studies was based on the GRADE instrument and the risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results and Conclusion: A total of 94 articles were found. In total, 62 articles were fully evaluated and 41 were included and evaluated in this study, and of the total of 41 articles, only 14 articles were developed as the main clinical results of the virtual zygomatic implant. Reducing errors and complications is essential if zygomatic implants are to remain a viable treatment alternative, and further research on a guided approach to their placement is encouraged. The surgical guide system showed accuracy for all variables studied and allowed acceptable and accurate implant placement, regardless of the complexity of the case. Thus, the surgical and prosthetic plan, the position, the emergence, the shape of the implants, the position of the provisional prosthesis, the inter-arch relationships, and the surgical templates were designed in a virtual environment and previously performed by the surgeon in stereolithographic models, allowing the surgical procedure was significantly simplified.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Rigo L, Tollardo J, Giammarinaro E, Covani U, Caso G. Fully Guided Zygomatic Implant Surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2021 Nov-Dec 01;32(8):2867-2872. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008005. PMID: 34320580.
  2. Alterman M, Fleissig Y, Casap N. Zygomatic Implants: Placement Considerations in Implant-Supported Maxillary Prosthesis. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2021 Sep;29(2):173-183. doi: 10.1016/j.cxom.2021.05.002. Epub 2021 Jul 6. PMID: 34325807.
  3. Hackett S, El-Wazani B, Butterworth C. Zygomatic implant-based rehabilitation for patients with maxillary and mid-facial oncology defects: A review. Oral Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):27-41. doi: 10.1111/odi.13305. Epub 2020 Mar 5. PMID: 32048429.
  4. Varghese KG, Gandhi N, Kurian N, Daniel AY, Dhawan K, Joseph M, Varghese MG. Rehabilitation of the severely resorbed maxilla by using quad zygomatic implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Dec 14:S0022-3913(21)00628-4. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.007. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34920870.
  5. Migliorança RM, Irschlinger AL, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Fabris RR, Javier Aizcorbe-Vicente and Zotarelli Filho IJ. History of zygomatic implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Oral Craniofac Res, 2019 [doi: 10.15761/DOCR.1000289].
  6. Rinaldi M, Ganz SD. Computer-Guided Approach for Placement of Zygomatic Implants: Novel Protocol and Surgical Guide. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2019 Mar;40(3):e1-e4.
  7. Wang H, Hung K, Zhao K, Wang Y, Wang F, Wu Y. Anatomical analysis of zygomatic bone in ectodermal dysplasia patients with oligodontia. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Apr;21(2):310-316. doi: 10.1111/cid.12731. Epub 2019 Feb 21.
  8. Merli M, Moscatelli M, Pagliaro U, Mariotti G, Merli I, Nieri M. Implant prosthetic rehabilitation in partially edentulous patients with bone atrophy. An umbrella review based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(3):261-280.
  9. Aboul-Hosn Centenero S, Lázaro A, Giralt-Hernando M, Hernández-Alfaro F. Zygoma Quad Compared With 2 Zygomatic Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Implant Dent. 2018, Jan 29.
  10. Pineau M, Nicot R, Lauwers L, Ferri J, Raoul G. Zygomatic implants in our daily practice. Part II: Prosthetic rehabilitation and effect on quality of life. Swiss Dent J. 2018 Sep 10;128(9):694-700.
  11. Pineau M, Nicot R, Lauwers L, Ferri J, Raoul G. Zygomatic implants in our daily practice. Part I: Treatment Plan and Surgical Technique. Swiss Dent J. 2018 Sep 10;128(9):689-693.
  12. Tuminelli FJ, Walter LR, Neugarten J, Bedrossian E. Immediate loading of zygomatic implants: A systematic review of implant survival, prosthesis survival and potential complications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:79-87.
  13. Molinero-Mourelle P, Baca-Gonzalez L, Gao B, Saez-Alcaide LM, Helm A, Lopez-Quiles J. Surgical complications in zygomatic implants: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Nov 1;21(6):e751-e757.
  14. Wu Y, Zhang C, Squarize CH, Zou D. Oral Rehabilitation of Adult Edentulous Siblings Severely Lacking Alveolar Bone Due to Ectodermal Dysplasia: A Report of 2 Clinical Cases and a Literature Review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015, 73(9):1733.e1-12.
  15. Lopes, L.F., et al., Placement of dental implants in the maxillary tuberosity: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015, 44(2): p. 229-38. 21.
  16. Ozaki H, Ishikawa S, Kitabatake K, Yusa K, Sakurai H, Iino M. Functional and aesthetic rehabilitation with maxillary prosthesis supported by two zygomatic implants for maxillary defect resulting from cancer ablative surgery: a case report/technique article. Odontology. 2015.
  17. Takamaru N, Nagai H, Ohe G, Tamatani T, Sumida K, Kitamura S, Miyamoto Y. Measurement of the zygomatic bone and pilot hole technique for safer insertion of zygomaticus implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015.
  18. Monteiro, D.R., et al. Posterior partially edentulous jaws, planning a rehabilitation with dental implants. World J Clin Cases, 2015. 3(1): p. 65- 76. 2.
  19. Yates, J.M., et al. Treatment of the edentulous atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants: evaluation of survival rates over 5-10 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014, 43(2): p. 237-42.
  20. Goiato, M.C., et al. Implants in the zygomatic bone for maxillary prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014, 43(6): p. 748-57. 12.
  21. Fernandez H., et al. Zygomatic implants for the management of the severely atrophied maxilla: a retrospective analysis of 244 implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014, 72(5): p. 887-91.
  22. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B, Engstrand P, Nannmark U. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38:70-85.
  23. Aparicio C., et al. Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the zygomatic success code. Periodontol. 2014, 66(1): p. 41-58. 16.
  24. Moro SA, Thomé G, Padovan LEM, da Silva RD, Tiossi R, Fontão FNGK. A zygomatic bone study using virtual dental implant planning software. J Oral Implantol. 2021 Jun 5. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00149. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34091691.
  25. Jung RE, Schneider D, Ganeles J, Wismeijer D, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, et al. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:92–109.
  26. Verstreken K, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Marchal G, Naert I, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D. Computer-assisted planning of oral implant surgery: a three-dimensional approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11(6):806–810.
  27. Chrcanovic BR, Oliveira DR, Custódio AL. Accuracy evaluation of computed tomography-derived stereolithographic surgical guides in zygomatic implant placement in human cadavers. J Oral Implantol. 2010;36(5):345–355.
  28. Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schimming R, Schmelzeisen R. Rechnergestützte insertion von Zygomatikumimplantaten (Brånemark-system) nach ablativer Tumorchirurgie. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 2000;4(5):292–295.
  29. Wang F, Bornstein M, Hung K, Fan S, Chen X, Huang W, et al. Application of real-time surgical navigation for zygomatic implant insertion in patients with severely atrophic maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(1):80–87.
  30. Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Derksen W. Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Supplement):25–42.
  31. Walker-Finch K, Ucer C. Five-year survival rates for implants placed using digitally-designed static surgical guides: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;58(3):268–276.
  32. Schneider D, Sancho-Puchades M, Mir-Marí J, Mühlemann S, Jung R, Hämmerle A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted implant planning and placement in partially edentulous patients. Part 4: accuracy of implant placement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019;39(4):e111–e122.
  33. Schiroli G, Angiero F, Zangerl A, Benedicenti S, Ferrante F, Widmann G. Accuracy of a flapless protocol for computer-guided zygomatic implant placement in human cadavers: expectations and reality. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2015;12(1):102–108.
  34. Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013, 17(2): p. 81-93. 17.
  35. Ugurlu, F., et al. Rehabilitation of posterior maxilla with zygomatic and dental implant after tumor resection: a case report. Case Rep Dent, 2013. 2013: p. 930345. 4. X.

How to Cite

Furtado, L., Martin, N. R., & Manzini, R. (2022). Major clinical results of virtual zygomatic implant and assessment of the risk of bias: a systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S3). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S319