Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (3)
Our study demonstrated the absence of pain as well as of pus or bleeding on probing and palpation for both zygomatic and conventional implants, with good bone level for conventional implants. No periimplant radiolucency was noted around the conventional implants and in the apical portion of the zygomatic implants. These findings are similar to the studies of Stiévenart and Malevez, Peñarrocha et al., and Davo et al.
Some authors reported inflammation of the soft tissue around the implants, being mucosa redness one of the signs. Farzad et al. reported some degree of inflammation found in 14 of 22 zygomatic implants installed by the original technique. The soft tissue found around the implant appeared to be susceptible to infection justified by the authors by the increase in the number of patients with problems in performing a correct oral hygiene. In our study, only one patient had redness in the palatal region of the left zygomatic, being also associated with poor hygiene. In our opinion, probably a factor that contributes to the health of periimplant zygomatic implants is a sulcus depth within an acceptable range, which is able to promote self-cleaning by the patient during brushing and/or gum massage.
The probing depth in the palatal mucosa of zygomatic implant can be considered normal up to 5 mm, consisting of parakeratinized epithelium which is not comparable to the normal depth of the sulcus around a conventional implant. In this study, both the zygomatic and conventional implants had a mean probing depth within normal limits, ranging from 2 to 3 mm, which is considered satisfactory. The technique of Stella and Warner allows a more vertical emergency profile favoring a less deep sulcus due to a more open angle obtained.
Serial posts:
- Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants using sinus slot technique
- Background : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants
- Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (1)
- Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (2)
- Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (3)
- Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (4)
- Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (5)
- Results : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (1)
- Results : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (2)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (1)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (2)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (3)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (4)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (5)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (6)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (7)
- Discussion : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (8)
- Reference : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (8)
- Figure 1. a Brånemark technique. b Sinus slot technique. c Extrasinus technique
- Figure 2. Periapical radiographs using the parallelism technique
- Figure 3. Panoramic radiograph showing bone level maintenance around the conventional implants
- Figure 4. Coronal slice from the CBCT showing implant apical third inside the zygomatic bone
- Figure 5. Coronal slice from the CBCT showing small exteriorization of a zygomatic implant apex
- Figure 6. Zygomatic implant probing using a WHO periodontal probe
- Figure 7. Visual analog scale—patient version
- Figure 8. Visual analog scale—evaluator version
- Table 1 Statistical analysis of individual parameters