Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
January/February 2009
Volume 22 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

Zygoma Implants for Midfacial Prosthetic Rehabilitation Using Telescopes: 9-Year Follow-up

Constantin Alexander Landes, MD, DMD, PhD/Christian Paffrath, DMD/Christian Koehler, DMD/Van Dung Thai, DMD/Stefan Stübinger, DMD/Robert Sader, MD, DMD, PhD/Hans-Christoph Lauer, DMD, PhD/Andree Piwowarczyk, DMD, PhDh

Pages: 20–32
PMID: 19260423

Purpose: This study presents successful maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation using telescopic and crowns on zygoma implants as abutments. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients received 36 zygomatic and 24 dental implants and were followed-up for an average of 65 months (range: 13 to 102 months). Machined zygoma implants were positioned classically in the maxillary molar region. In larger defects, premolar and canine implants were also used. Follow-up included implant and prosthetic success parameters as well as the completion of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP14G). Results: Seventy-three percent of patients during the study period did not encounter notable complications after prosthetic rehabilitation. There was an 89% cumulative 8-year zygoma implant survival rate and a 100% survival rate for the dental implants. Three losses occurred due to overloading and persistent infection; each was immediately replaced. Five successfully osseointegrated implants had to be removed in two patients due to recurrences of disease; one patient died. Peri-implant bleeding and plaque index scores decreased. After prosthetic treatment with electroplated gold or galvanotelescopes, all patients who had participated in the follow-up declared function (ie, retention, speech, and mastication) and esthetics as having improved. Other positive aspects mentioned were good hygiene, comfortable usage, and a decrease in sore spots. OHIP scores were 25 ± 12 on a scale of 0 (no impairment) to 56 (maximum impairment). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study (a variable evaluation period), it was observed that zygomatic implants are reliable retention for maxillofacial prostheses. Losses were diagnosed as occuring primarily from chronic infection and overloading. A trapezoid prosthesis design support is recommended with a sufficient number of implants. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:20–32.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog