Results : Evaluation of patients undergoing placement of zygomatic implants (1)
Results
Of the 17 operated patients, 14 were included in the study and 2 were excluded for not having enough data in the chart and 1 for refusing to return for evaluation of sinus health, totalizing 27 zygomatic implants and 55 conventional implants in group I, without losing any implant, representing 100 % survival of implants placed. The minimum follow-up was 15 and the maximum was 53 months (average of 34 months) after installation of fixed denture for group I. The emergence of the implants occurred between the regions of the second premolar and first molar. In class V cases of Cawood and Howell (1998), the emergence was more palatinized.
Implants radiographic evaluation
The bone level observed in conventional implants appeared to be above two thirds of their total length in 96.3 % of the cases, with only 3.6 % having the bone level at the two-third mark. Most cases of bone loss were in the posterior region. No cases of persistent radiolucency around the implants were observed.
The zygomatic implants showed that they were adequately positioned with the apical third into the bone, with externalization of 1 mm in 22.2 % of the cases.
Clinical evaluation
Pain or purulent secretion on palpation was not observed to be associated with any of the inserted implants either conventional or zygomatic. The color of the mucosa was normal in 100 % of installed conventional implants and in 96.29 % of zygomatic implants, with only one implant showing redness in the palate on all sides of the implant.
The probing of conventional implants was not possible to perform due to the length of the prosthesis, as they were not removed in the study. Only the zygomatic implants could be probed to analyze the periimplant sulcus. There was no purulent discharge or bleeding in any of the surveyed sites. The probing depth ranged from 2 to 3 mm in all surfaces, showing the absence of inflammatory pathologies and appropriate levels of depth.
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