Search

Purpose: The present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla., Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS., Results: A total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34-2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66-4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04-4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83-1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43-2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69-2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34-4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86-5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups ( p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements., Conclusion: Using d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.

The main objective of this analysis was to evaluate (1) implant survival, (2) biologic complications, and (3) demographics associated with zygomatic implants placed according to the zygomatic anatomy-guided approach (ZAGA). This retrospective multicenter study reviewed data from the charts of 82 consecutive patients who had received 182 zygomatic implants. Patients were fully edentulous (62.2%), partially edentulous (22.0%), or had failing dentition (15.9%). Most patients (87.5%) did not have previous sinusitis and 11.3% had been previously treated for it. Additionally, about half of the patients (53.8%) did not present periodontal pathology, and one-third (36.3%) did, but were subsequently treated. Most implants (93.8%) were loaded immediately, i.e., within 48 h of placement. Implants were followed for 10.5 ± 7.2 months, and all were recorded as surviving and stable at last follow-up. Post-operative complications were infrequent and included sinusitis (10.1%) and peri-implant hyperplasia (0.8%). The low complication rate and 100% implant survival and stability indicate that zygomatic implants offer a viable treatment option when performing graftless restoration of severely resorbed maxilla, including immediate loading protocols.