Literature DB >> 32142574

ORIS Criteria of Success for the Zygoma-Related Rehabilitation: The (Revisited) Zygoma Success Code.

Carlos Aparicio, Roberto López-Piriz, Tomas Albrektsson.   

Abstract

Zygomatic-related implant rehabilitation differs from traditional implant treatment in biomechanics, clinical procedures, outcomes, and eventual complications such as soft tissue incompetence or recession that may lead to recurrent sinus/soft tissue complications. The extreme maxillary atrophy that indicates the use of zygomatic implants prevents use of conventional criteria to describe implant success/failure. Currently, results and complications of zygomatic implants reported in the literature are inconsistent and lack a standardized systematic review. Moreover, protocols for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla using zygomatic implants have been in continuous evolution. The current zygomatic approach is relatively new, especially if the head of the zygomatic implant is located in an extramaxillary area with interrupted alveolar bone around its perimeter. Specific criteria to describe success/survival of zygomatic implants are necessary, both to write and to read scientific literature related to zygomatic implant-based oral rehabilitations. The aim of this article was to review the criteria of success used for traditional and zygomatic implants and to propose a revisited Zygomatic Success Code describing specific criteria to score the outcome of a rehabilitation anchored on zygomatic implants. The ORIS acronym is used to name four specific criteria to systematically describe the outcome of zygomatic implant rehabilitation: offset measurement as evaluation of prosthetic positioning; rhino-sinus status report based on a comparison of presurgical and postsurgical cone beam computed tomography in addition to a clinical questionnaire; infection permanence as evaluation of soft tissue status; and stability report, accepting as success some mobility until dis-osseointegration signs appear. Based on these criteria, the assessment of five possible conditions when evaluating zygomatic implants is possible.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32142574     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.7488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  6 in total

1.  Comparative evaluation of extrasinus versus intrasinus approach for zygomatic implant placement.

Authors:  Deepika Kumari Jain; U S Pal; Shadab Mohammad; Divya Mehrotra; Ravi Katrolia; Saatvik Shandilya; Lakshya Yadav; Arunesh Kumar Tiwari
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2022-09-10

2.  Three-Dimensional Guided Zygomatic Implant Placement after Maxillectomy.

Authors:  Nathalie Vosselman; Haye H Glas; Bram J Merema; Joep Kraeima; Harry Reintsema; Gerry M Raghoebar; Max J H Witjes; Sebastiaan A H J de Visscher
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-04-06

3.  Zygomatic implant penetration to the central portion of orbit: a case report.

Authors:  Luan Mavriqi; Felice Lorusso; Roberto Conte; Biagio Rapone; Antonio Scarano
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.209

4.  Round and flat zygomatic implants: effectiveness after a 1-year follow-up non-interventional study.

Authors:  Carlos Aparicio; Waldemar D Polido; James Chow; Rubén Davó; Bilal Al-Nawas
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2022-04-01

Review 5.  Success Rates of Zygomatic Implants for the Rehabilitation of Severely Atrophic Maxilla: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Aleix Solà Pérez; David Pastorino; Carlos Aparicio; Marta Pegueroles Neyra; Rabia Sannam Khan; Simon Wright; Cemal Ucer
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-12

6.  Bone Regeneration and Soft Tissue Enhancement Around Zygomatic Implants: Retrospective Case Series.

Authors:  Peñarrocha-Diago M; Bernabeu-Mira Jc; Fernández-Ruíz A; Aparicio C; Peñarrocha-Oltra D
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-29       Impact factor: 3.623

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.