ZIGOMATIK IMPLANTLARDA BAŞARI VE PERIODONTAL PARAMETRELERIN KLINIK DEĞERLENDIRILMESI

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmanın amacı, zigomatik implantların uzun dönem klinik başarısının ve periodontal parametrelerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Materyal ve Method: İleri derecede atrofik maksillaya sahip ve zigomatik implant uygulanmış hastalar çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada zigomatik implantların sağkalım oranları, komplikasyonları ve periimplant parametreleri (palatinal, vestibuler, mezial ve distal olmak üzere dört bölgede) değerlendirilmiştir. Cep sondalama derinliği (PPD) ≤5 mm, sondalamada kanama (BOP) olmaması ve modifiye plak indeksinin (PI) ≤1 olması başarılı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu değerler zigomatik implantların yerleştirmelerini takiben en az bir yıl sonra ölçülmüştür. Bulgular: Çalışmaya, yaşları 51-76 arasında değişen (ortalama 59.08 yaş, SD 7.82) toplam 69 zigomatik implant yerleştirilmiş 25 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların takip süresi 65-88 ay arasıdır. Sonuçlara göre zigomatik implant sağkalım oranı %98.6 ve başarı oranı %91.3 olarak bulunmuştur. Bir subkutan fistül ve bir oroantal komunikasyon olmak üzere toplam iki hastada post-operatif komplikasyon görülmüştür. Sondalamada kanama %92.7 bölgede yoktur, plak indeksi % 94.2 bölgede sıfır değerde ve sondalama derinliği % 91.3 bölgede ≤ 5 mmdir. Hiçbir zigomatik implantta lüksasyon görülmemiştir. Sonuç: Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre, ileri derecede atrofik posterior maksillaya sahip vakalarda, oral rehabilitasyon amaçlı zigomatik implant cerrahisi, geleneksel implantlara ve kemik greftleme işlemlerine etkili ve güvenli bir alternatif olarak kabul edilebilir. Anahtar kelimeler: Zigomatik implant, maksiller atrofi, oral rehabilitasyon, dental implant, periodontal parametre

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Zigomatik implant, maksiller atrofi, oral rehabilitasyon, dental implant, periodontal parametre

PDF

___

1. Stievenart M, Malevez C. Rehabilitation of totally atrophied maxilla by means of four zygomatic implants and fixed prosthesis: a 6–40-month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 39: 358–63
2. Boyne PJ, James RA. Grafting of the maxillary sinus floor with autogenous marrow and bone. J Oral Surg 1980; 38: 613–6.
3. Breine U, Brånemark PI. Reconstruction of alveolar jawbone. An experimental and clinical study of immediate and preformed autologous bone grafts in combination with osseointegrated implants. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1980; 14: 23–48.
4. Isaksson S, Ekfeldt A, Alberius P, Blomqvist JE. Early results from reconstruction of severely atrophic (class VI) maxillas by immediate endosseous implants in conjunction with bone grafting and Le Fort I osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993; 22: 144–8.
5. Block MS, Haggerty CJ, Fisher GR. Nongrafting implant options for restoration of the edentulous maxilla. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 872–81.
6. Misch CE, Steigenga J, Barbozza E, Misch-Dietsh F, Cianciola LJ, Kazor C. Short Dental Implants in Posterior Partial Edentulism: A Multicenter Retrospective 6 Year Case Series Study. J of Periodontol 2006; 77: 1340-7.
7. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis journal of dentistry. 2015; 43: 149–70.
8. Pozzi A, Sannino G, Barlattani A. Minimally invasive treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla: A proof- of-concept prospective study with a follow-up of between 36 and 54 months. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 108: 286-97.
9. Brånemark PI. Surgery and fixture installation. Zygomaticus fixture clinical procedures. 1st ed. Göteborg, Sweden: Nobel Biocare AB;1998.
10. Farzad P, Andersson L, Gunnarsson S, Johansson B. Rehabilitation of severely resorbed maxillae with zygomatic implants: an evaluation of implant stability, tissue conditions, and patients’ opinion before and after treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 399-404.
11. Brånemark PI, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Petruson B, Svensson B, Engstrand P, Nannmark U. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2004; 38: 70–85.
12. Tolman DE, Desjardins RP, Jackson IT, Brånemark PI. Complex craniofacial reconstruction using an implant-supported prosthesis: case report with long-term follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12: 243-51.
13. Chrcanovic BR, Abreu MH. Survival and complications of zygomatic implants: a systematic review. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 17: 81–93.
14. Al-Nawas B, Wegener J, Bender C, Wagner W. Critical soft tissue parameters of the zygomatic implant. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31: 497-500.
15. Lombardo G, D’Agostino A, Trevisiol L, Romanelli MG, Mascellaro A, Gomez-Lira M, Pardo A, Favero V, Nocini PF. Clinical, microbiologic and radiologic assessment of soft and hard tissues surrounding zygomatic implants: a retrospective study Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2016; 122: 537-46.
16. Nobre MA, Maló P, Gonçalves I. Evaluation of clinical soft tissue parameters. Implant Dentistry 2015; 24: 267-74.
17. Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP, Moreno A, Gennari-Filho H, dos Santos DM, Santiago JF, dos Santos EG. Implants in the zygomatic bone for maxillary prosthetic rehabilitation: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 43: 748–57.
18. Malevez C, Abarca M, Durdu F, Daelemans P. Clinical outcome of 103 consecutive zygomatic implants: a 6–8 months follow-up study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 18–22.
19. Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A retro-spective analysis of 110 zygomatic implants in a single-stage immediate loading protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 335–41.
20. Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Abrahamsson P, Sennerby L. Evaluation of 31 zygomatic implants and 74 regular dental implants used in 16 patients for prosthetic reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with cross-arch fixed bridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2005; 7: 159–65.
21. Ahlgren F, Størksen K, Tornes K. A study of 25 zygomatic dental implants with 11 to 49 months’ follow-up after loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21: 421–5.
22. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Garcia R, Arevalo X, Muela R, Fortes V. A prospective clinical study on titanium implants in the zygomatic arch for prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla with a follow-up of 6 months to 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 114–22.
23. Candel-Marti E, Carrillo-Garcia C, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M. Rehabilitation of Atrophic Posterior Maxilla With Zygomatic Implants: Review Journal of Oral Implantology 2012; 38: 653-7.
24. Wang F, Monje A, Lin GH, Wu Y, Monje F, Wang HL, Davo R. Reliability of four zygomatic implant-supported prostheses for the rehabilitation of the atrophic maxilla: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 293–8.
25. Filho HN, Amaral WS, Curra C, dos Santos PL, Cardoso CL. Zygomatic implant: Late complications in a period of 12 years of experience. Rev Clin Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral 2016; 1-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.piro.2016.03.007
26. Malo´ P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes I. A new approach to rehabilitate the severely atrophic maxilla using extramaxillary anchored implants in immediate function: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100: 354–66.
27. Aparicio C, Ouazzani W, Aparicio A, Fortes V, Muela R, Pascual A, Codesal M, Barluenga N, Manresa C, Franch M. Extra- sinus zygomatic implants: three year experience from a new sur- gical approach for patients with pronounced buccal concavities in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12: 55–61.
28. Chow J, Wat P, Hui E, Lee P, Li W. A new method to eliminate the risk of maxillary sinusitis with zygomatic implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 1233–40.
29. Ishak MI, Abdul Kadir MR, Sulaiman E, Abu Kasim NH. Finite element analysis of different surgical approaches in various occlusal loading locations for zygomatic implant placement for the treatment of atrophic maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 1077–89.
30. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Alandez J, Gonzalez-Martin O, Albrektsson T. Zygomatic implants: indications, techniques and outcomes, and the Zygomatic Success Code. Periodontology 2000 2014; 66: 41–58
31. Maló P, Nobre MA, Lopes A, Ferro A, Moss S. Extramaxillary Surgical Technique: Clinical Outcome of 352 Patients Rehabilitated with 747 Zygomatic Implants with a Follow-Up between 6 Months and 7 Years. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2015; 17: 153-62