Identification of the Pathway and Appropriate Use of Four Zygomatic Implants in the Atrophic Maxilla: A Cross-Sectional Study

• Autores: Carlos Aparicio Magallón, Waldemar Polido, James Chow, Lesley A. David, Rubén Davó Rodríguez, Eduardo Jose De Moraes, Alex Fibishenko, Masami Ando, Guy Mclellan, Costa Nicolopoulos, Michael A. Pikos, Hooman Zarrinkelk, Thomas J. Balshi, Miguel Peñarrocha Diago
• Localización: The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, ISSN-e 0882-2786, Vol. 36, Nº. 4, 2021, págs. 807-817
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This cross-sectional study aimed to identify and characterize the pathway for appropriate placement of four zygomatic implants in the severely atrophic maxilla and to group the anatomical variations of the osteotomy trajectory for anterior zygomatic implants. Materials and methods: CBCT images of patients presenting indications for the use of four zygomatic implants to withstand a maxillary rehabilitation were reviewed. Cross-sectional planes corresponding to the implant trajectories, designed according to a zygoma anatomy-guided approach for implants placed in the anterior and posterior maxilla, were assessed separately. The relationship of the implant osteotomy trajectory with the correlated residual alveolar bone, nasal and sinus cavities, maxillary wall, and zygomatic bone anatomies was established. Results: The study population included 122 globally recruited patients, with 488 zygomatic implants, 244 of which had their starting point on the anterior incisor-canine area and 244 on the posterior premolar-molar area. The anatomy of the osteotomy path designed for the anterior implants ("A") was named and grouped into five assemblies from zygomatic anatomy-guided ZAGA A-0 to A-4, representing 2.9%, 4.5%, 19.7%, 55.7%, and 17.2% of the studied sites. Percentages for posterior implant ("P") trajectories of the osteotomy were grouped and named as ZAGA P-0 to P-4, representing 5.7%, 10.2%, 8.2%, 18.4%, and 57.4% of the sites, respectively. Approximately 70% of the population presented anatomical intra-individual differences. Conclusion: The trajectory of the zygomatic implant followed different anatomical pathways depending on its coronal point being anteriorly or posteriorly located, which justifies a new zygoma anatomy-guided approach classification for anteriorly placed zygomatic implants. Topographic characteristics of the anatomical structures that are cut by an anterior oblique plane joining the lateral incisor-canine area to the zygomatic bone, representing the planned anterior osteotomy path in a quadruple-zygoma indication, have not been previously reported. Adaptation of surgical procedures and implant sections/designs to individual patients' anatomical characteristics is essential to reduce early and long-term complications.