Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 1, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Factors influencing implant and prosthesis survival in zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation: a
Luis Eduardo Marques Padovan1, Dalton Suzuki1, Leandro Eduardo Kluppel1
1Ilapeo College, R. Jacarezinho, 656, Curitiba, PR, 80710-150, Brazil.
Background:
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate mid-term implant and prosthesis survival in patients with edentulous atrophic maxillae submitted to zygomatic implant-supported fixed rehabilitation and to identify possible related risk factors.
Methods:
Data were collected from records of patients with edentulous atrophic maxillae, in good general health and who were rehabilitated by means of acrylic resin full-arch screw-retained prosthesis supported by at least one zygomatic implant, between the years of 2006-2017. Implant and prosthesis survival rates were calculated. The association between implant and prosthesis loss and quantitative and qualitative variables of interest was verified with t tests and Fisher's exact tests, respectively. For the significant variables in the latter, odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were additionally calculated.
Results:
The sample comprised 66 patients in whom 171 zygomatic implants were placed to support maxillary screw-retained full-arch prostheses. Implant and prosthesis survival rates of 94.15% and 92.4%, respectively, were observed in a mean of 3.6 years of follow-up (up to 11.7 years). Implant loss was 4.33 more likely to occur when adverse events were recorded after the procedure of implant placement (P = 0.026) and 10.31 more likely to occur in implants that had their prosthesis repaired during follow-up visits (P = 0.004). Prosthesis loss was 22.00 times more likely to occur when implants were previously lost (P < 0.001). All prostheses that were considered as failures (i.e. were replaced) had been previously submitted to laboratory repair at some point during follow-up.
Conclusions:
Zygomatic implant rehabilitation demonstrated to be a reliable method with good mid-term results. The occurrence of post-surgical adverse events and need for laboratory repair of the prosthesis were found to be significant risk factors for implant loss. Previous implant loss was significantly associated with prosthesis loss. These risk factors may be prevented by means of detailed planning of the rehabilitation to be carried out, including post-operative care of the patients, so that treatment success using zygomatic implants can be achieved.
