Methods : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (3)
All patients were rehabilitated with Conexão® implants system. The inclusion criteria for group I were patients with severe maxillary resorption, classified as classes IV and V of Cawood and Howell (1988), receiving zygomatic implants using Stella and Warner’s technique, performed by the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department from the Rio Grande do Norte Federal University, and having full implant-supported fixed prosthesis with at least one zygomatic implant under functional loading for at least 6 months. For the group II, individuals rehabilitated with full fixed implant-supported prosthesis without the presence of zygomatic implants, without reconstructive surgeries, and also on functional loading for at least 6 months were included. The healing time for all zygomatic implants was, at least, 6 months.
The evaluation was performed in four stages: the first was characterized by a radiographic analysis of implants in group I, the second was a clinical evaluation of implants placed in group I, the third was an evaluation of the maxillary sinus health in group I, and the fourth consisted of an application of a questionnaire to assess the degree of satisfaction of the prosthetic rehabilitation in groups I and II. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success rate of zygomatic implants using Stella and Warner’s technique, investigating the survival rate, sinus disease, and the satisfaction of patients rehabilitated with full fixed prostheses with zygomatic implants.
The hypothesis of this study was to analyze if Stella and Warner’s technique have high survival rates and their rehabilitation have similar satisfaction when compared to total fixed prostheses with conventional implants.
Radiographic evaluation
Panoramic and periapical radiographs were obtained for conventional and zygomatic implants in group I (Figs. 2.a.b and 3). The purpose was to evaluate the bone level for the conventional implants, considering that up to two thirds of the total length of the implant would be acceptable as a standard of osteointegration.
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