PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to evaluate the survival rate of 34 remote anchorage implants placed in 18 patients from placement to uncovering, prior to any prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 18 patients (9 women and 9 men with a mean age of 63 years) who required rehabilitation with a fixed prosthesis because of severely atrophic maxillae (including 1 patient who had undergone primary and secondary cleft lip and palate repair), traumatic maxillary bone loss, and maxillectomy procedures received 1 or 2 zygomatic implants and 2 to 4 standard maxillary dental implants. The survival rate of the 34 zygomatic implants from placement to uncovering was investigated. Aspects of the placement technique or postoperative complications related to surgical procedures likely to affect the implant failure rate were detected and critically discussed. RESULTS: Osseointegration was evaluated using the reverse torque test and percussion after uncovering. Only 1 patient (5.6%) sustained postoperative clinical complications during the evaluation period which resulted in the loss of both zygomatic implants (5.9%). CONCLUSION: Although the handling of this anchorage implant system is somewhat complex, and the design has certain shortcomings, it might be an alternative to more extensive bone augmentation procedures. However, rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients with fixed implant-supported prosthesis is only feasible when 2 to 4 standard implants are placed in the anterior maxilla and splinted with the zygomatic implants.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to evaluate the survival rate of 34 remote anchorage implants placed in 18 patients from placement to uncovering, prior to any prosthetic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 18 patients (9 women and 9 men with a mean age of 63 years) who required rehabilitation with a fixed prosthesis because of severely atrophic maxillae (including 1 patient who had undergone primary and secondary cleft lip and palate repair), traumatic maxillary bone loss, and maxillectomy procedures received 1 or 2 zygomatic implants and 2 to 4 standard maxillary dental implants. The survival rate of the 34 zygomatic implants from placement to uncovering was investigated. Aspects of the placement technique or postoperative complications related to surgical procedures likely to affect the implant failure rate were detected and critically discussed. RESULTS: Osseointegration was evaluated using the reverse torque test and percussion after uncovering. Only 1 patient (5.6%) sustained postoperative clinical complications during the evaluation period which resulted in the loss of both zygomatic implants (5.9%). CONCLUSION: Although the handling of this anchorage implant system is somewhat complex, and the design has certain shortcomings, it might be an alternative to more extensive bone augmentation procedures. However, rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulouspatients with fixed implant-supported prosthesis is only feasible when 2 to 4 standard implants are placed in the anterior maxilla and splinted with the zygomatic implants.