UNASSIGNED: To systematically review existing scientific literature to determine, compare and evaluate the sinus complication and survival rates of quad zygoma against two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants in atrophic maxilla in adults.
UNASSIGNED: Review was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines and registered in PROSPERO-CRD42023392721 Electronic databases like PubMed, Google scholar and EBSCO host were searched from 2000 to December 2022 for studies reporting treatment of Atrophic maxilla with either quad zygoma or two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants. Quality assessment was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCT). The risk of bias summary graph and risk of bias summary applicability concern was plotted using RevMan software version 5.3. The odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as summary statistic measure with random effect model and p value < 0.05 as statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only nine studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through the odds ratio 0.59 signifies that the quad zygomatic implants on an average has 0.59 (0.18-1.93) times or odds of developing sinus complications while the SMD signifies that better survival rate (SR) on an average is 0.35 (- 0.61 to 1.30) times more by two zygomatic implants with combination of two regular implants as compared to quad zygomatic implants (p > 0.05). Publication bias through the funnel plot showed asymmetric distribution with systematic heterogeneity.
UNASSIGNED: Two zygomatic implants in combination with two regular implants provides better survival rate and less sinus complications compared to quad zygoma in atrophic maxilla. Despite the high SR observed, there is a need to conduct more randomized controlled clinical trials to examine their efficacy in comparison with other techniques.

BACKGROUND: Atrophic edentulous maxilla is a debilitating condition caused by the progressive and irreversible bone resorption following loss of teeth, that results in bone of inadequate volume and density. This makes conventional implant therapy extremely challenging without complex reconstructive procedures. Several techniques such as sinus augmentation, short implants, and tilted implants have been used for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla. In recent years, zygomatic implants have emerged as a graftless rehabilitation technique. However, few studies compare zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation with other fixed rehabilitation techniques. The existing body of evidence on zygomatic implants is largely based on clinical and disease-oriented outcomes.
METHODS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) will be conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation with the other rehabilitation techniques. Experimental and observational studies comparing different implant-assisted fixed rehabilitation in adults with atrophic maxilla will be included. The primary and secondary outcomes will be patient\'s satisfaction and quality of life respectively. Additional outcomes include the implant\'s survival/success, and biological and prosthetic complications. An electronic search will be performed through various databases for articles in English and French, without time limits. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and ROBINS-I for non-randomized and observational studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and extract data. Any discrepancy between reviewers will be discussed and resolved through consensus or with the help of a third reviewer. Pairwise meta-analyses will be performed using a random effects model. I2, τ2, transitivity, subgroup/meta-regression analyses will assess and explain heterogeneity and distribution of effect modifiers. A network plot will be created to connect the different interventions directly and indirectly. Interventions will be ranked using the surface under cumulative ranking curve. Confidence in the results of the NMA will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
CONCLUSIONS: This study will be the first to assess the effectiveness of zygomatic-implant fixed rehabilitation for the atrophic maxilla using NMA. The evidence obtained will aid clinical decision-making and will advance the knowledge of the rehabilitation techniques for the atrophic maxilla.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023353303.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival rate (SR) and probability of postoperative complications at both the implant and patient level for each of the four surgical techniques for zygomatic implant (ZI) placement: Brånemark, sinus slot, extrasinus, and extramaxillary.
METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that reported the survival rate and postoperative ZI complications for the rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous maxillae was conducted based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. Two independent reviewers consulted four databases during the literature search: MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, Clinicaltrials.gov, and LILACS. Duplicate articles were eliminated.
RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that study design (prospective vs retrospective) had no significant impact (P = .10) on the outcomes. The SR was highest for the Brånemark and extrasinus techniques (100%) and lowest for the sinus slot technique (94%; 95% CI = 86% to 102%). The extramaxillary (38%; 95% CI = 1% to 3%) and the Brånemark (29%; 95% CI = 15% to 44%) techniques resulted in the highest occurrence of patient-level complications. Moreover, the extramaxillary technique showed the highest percentage of prothesis-related complications (44%; 95% CI = 27% to 62%).
CONCLUSIONS: ZI placement was demonstrated to be a reliable technique for the rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae, irrespective of the surgical technique evaluated. Accurate case and surgical protocol selection is of paramount importance to reduce technique-related postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding the indications for placement of zygomatic implants to rehabilitate edentulous maxillae.
METHODS: A focused question using the PIO format was developed, questioning \"in patients in need of an implant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae, what are the indications for the use of zygomatic implants\'\'. The primary information analyzed and collected was a clear description of the indication for the use of zygomatic implants.
RESULTS: A total of 1266 records were identified through database searching. The full-text review was conducted for 117 papers, and 10 were selected to be included in this review. Zygomatic implant indications were extreme bone atrophy or deficiency secondary to different factors. The quad zygoma concept (two zygomatic implants bilaterally placed and splinted) was applied to 107 patients, the classic zygoma concept (one zygomatic implant bilaterally placed and splinted to standard anterior implants) was used in 88 patients, and the unilateral concept (one zygomatic implant on one side, splinted with one or more conventional implants) was employed in 14 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The main indication for the use of zygomatic implants was considered extreme maxillary bone atrophy, resulting from many factors. The clear definition of what was considered \"extreme bone atrophy\" is not uniquely defined in each paper. Further studies are needed to develop clear indications for zygomatic implants.

BACKGROUND: Zygomatic implants (ZI) have been frequently indicated to rehabilitate patients with extensive atrophies in alternatives to major bone reconstructions. It can be installed inside the maxillary sinus, called instrasinus zygomatic implant (IZI) or outside the maxillary sinus (EZI), depending on the surgery technique.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the survival and complication rates of ZI in longitudinal studies when compared with conventional implants (CI).
METHODS: An electronic search was performed in five databases and in Gray literature for articles published until April, 2022. The eligibility criteria comprised observational cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 5 years of follow-up, reporting survival rate of ZI versus CI. A meta-analysis was conduct with 18 studies.
RESULTS: A total of 5434 implants (2972 ZI and 2462 CI) were analyzed in 1709 patients. The mean survival rate was 96.5% ± 5.02 and 95.8% ± 6.36 for ZI and CI, respectively (mean follow-up time of 78 months). There were observed no statistically significant between ZI and CI in prospective studies (risk ratio [RR] of 1.21; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.28 to 5.28; chi-squared [Chi2 ] = 11.37; I2  = 56%; degrees of freedom [df] = 5; z-score = 0.25; P = 0.80), retrospective studies IZI (RR of 1.29; 95% CIs: 0.52 to 3.23; Chi2  = 4.07; I2  = 2%; df = 4; z-score = 0.55; P = 0.58) and retrospective studies EZI (RR of 0.72; 95% CIs: 0.31 to 1.66; Chi2  = 1.99; I2  = 0%; df = 3; z-score = 0.78; P = 0.44). The biological complications most related to ZI was sinusitis, followed by infection and oroantral communication.
CONCLUSIONS: ZI have a high long-term survival rate (96.5% with a mean of 91.5 months of follow-up), showing no significant difference when compared with CI. The most prevalent biological complication is sinusitis, being most commonly to the IZI technique. This systematic review (SR) was registered in INPLASY under number INPLASY202280025.

Zygomatic implants are a treatment solution for patients with severe maxillary atrophy. This treatment option allows delivering immediate fixed teeth within 24 h. Numerous peer-reviewed publications have reported different success rates, resulting in a disagreement on the topic. Therefore, the overall efficacy and predictability of this rehabilitation is still a matter of discussion. With this study, we aimed to identify the published literature on the use of zygomatic implants for the reconstruction of the severely atrophic maxilla and report the cumulative success rate (CSR) as a function of follow-up time. A systematic review of the literature on zygomatic implant for the treatment of severe maxillary atrophy was performed and 196 publications were included in the study. The cumulative success rate of zygomatic implants for the treatment of severe maxillary atrophy was 98.5% at less than 1 year, 97.5% between 1 and 3 years, 96.8% between 3 and 5 years and 96.1% after more than 5 years. The most commonly reported complications were soft tissue dehiscence, rhinosinusitis and prosthetic failures. The treatment of severe lack of bone in the upper maxilla with zygomatic implants is a safe procedure, reaching a cumulative success rate of 96.1% after more than 5 years.

Introduction and Objective: Zygomatic implants (ZI) offer a good and predictable alternative to reconstructive procedures of atrophic maxillae. The main objetive of this systematic review was to assess the effect of rehabilitation with zygomatic implants on patient\'s quality of life (QLP) using Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs).Materials and Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines. An automated electronic search was conducted in four databases supplemented by a manual search for relevant articles published until the end of January 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale were used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.Results: General findings of this systematic review showed substantial increases in Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) among patients restored with ZI and high scores in terms of general satisfaction, especially in chewing ability and esthetics. An overall survival rate of ZI was 98.3% after a mean follow-up time of 46.5 months was observed. Occurrence of 13.1% biological complications and 1.8% technical complications were reported.Conclusions: Patients rehabilitated with zygomatic implant-supported complete dental prostheses showed substantial improvements in OHRQoL and general satisfaction with the treatment received.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze and compare the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the survival rate and prosthetic and sinus complications of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla. Four databases were consulted during the literature search: Pubmed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicate articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 46 articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and 32 for the quantitative analysis.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials, 19 prospective clinical studies, 20 retrospective studies, and 3 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Conventional dental implants failure (n = 3549) were seen in 2.89% (IC-95% 1.83-3.96%), while zygomatic dental implants failure (n = 1895) were seen in 0.69% (IC-95% 0.21-1.16%). The measure of the effect size used was the Odds Ratio, which was estimated at 2.05 with a confidence interval of 95% between 1.22 and 3.44 (z test = 2.73; p-value = 0.006). The failure risk of conventional dental implants is 2.1 times higher than that of zygomatic dental implants. Slight heterogeneity was determined in the meta-analysis between 23 combined studies (Q test = 32.4; p-value = 0.070; I2 = 32.1%). Prosthetic complications were recorded in 4.9% (IC-95% 2.7-7.3%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 28 combined studies (Q test = 88.2; p-value = 0.001; I2 = 69.4%). Sinus complications were seen in 4.7% (IC-95% 2.8-6.5%) and mild heterogeneity was observed in a meta-analysis of 32 combined studies (Q test = 75.3; p-value = 0.001; I2 = 58.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The high survival rate and low prosthetic and sinus complications related to zygomatic dental implants suggest the use of zygomatic dental implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla.

Dynamic Navigation is a computer-aided technology that allows the surgeon to track the grip instruments while preparing the implant site in real time based on radiological anatomy and accurate pre-operative planning. The support of this technology to the zygoma implant placement aims to reduce the risks and the errors associated with this complex surgical and prosthetic treatment. Various navigation systems are available to clinicians currently, distinguished by handling, reliability, and the associated economic and biological benefits and disadvantages. The present paper reports on the different protocols of dynamic navigations following a standard workflow in correlation with zygomatic implant supported rehabilitations and describes a case of maxillary atrophy successfully resolved with this technology. An innovative and minimally invasive dynamic navigation system, with the use of an intraoral anchored trust marker plate and a patient reference tool, has been adopted to support the accurate insertion of four zygomatic implants, which rapidly resolved maxillary atrophy from a 75-year-old male system. This approach provided an optimal implant placement accuracy reducing surgical invasiveness.

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate clinical studies on the follow-up survival of implants inserted in the zygomatic bone for maxillary rehabilitation. A comprehensive search of studies published from 2000 to July 2012 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Relevant studies were selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The initial database search yielded 751 titles. After filtering, 313 abstracts were selected, culminating in 42 full text articles. Application of eligibility criteria led to the elimination of 17 articles. Hence 25 full-text articles were considered clinically relevant and were included. Calculations of the interval survival rates and cumulative survival rates of implants could be carried out on the data extracted from the final list of included studies for the different time intervals. These studies reported the insertion of a total of 1541 zygomatic implants and 33 implant failures. Failure generally occurred during the first year interval and was related to clinical complications, such as recurrent acute and chronic sinusitis. After a 36-month follow-up, the survival rate was 97.86%. Additional studies with longer follow-up periods, including the number of zygomatic implants inserted and details of the variations in the surgical techniques used and the impact of the maxillary morphology are still required.