Graftless Solutions for Rehabilitation of Atrophied Maxilla - Zygomatic Versus Subperiosteal Implants - A Systematic Review.

IF 0.7 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-06 DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1802_24

M V S Sudhir, Rajendra B Prasad, Niranjani Krothapalli, Perukasrujan Kumar

{"title":"Graftless Solutions for Rehabilitation of Atrophied Maxilla - Zygomatic Versus Subperiosteal Implants - A Systematic Review.","authors":"M V S Sudhir, Rajendra B Prasad, Niranjani Krothapalli, Perukasrujan Kumar","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1802_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae is challenging when graft-based techniques are unsuitable. This review compares zygomatic and subperiosteal implants for clinical outcomes, complications, and procedural considerations.Methods: A systematic search in major databases identified studies on zygomatic and subperiosteal implants, analyzing survival rates, complications, and patient satisfaction.Results: Zygomatic implants (623 patients) showed a 96.1% survival rate, with sinusitis as a common complication. Subperiosteal implants (257 patients) had a 97.8% short-term survival rate, with soft tissue dehiscence as the main issue. CAD/CAM improved subperiosteal implant outcomes.Conclusions: Both implants are effective, with zygomatic implants offering established long-term success and subperiosteal implants emerging as a customizable alternative. Further studies are needed for validation.","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"17 Suppl 1","pages":"S207-S210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12156548/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1802_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae is challenging when graft-based techniques are unsuitable. This review compares zygomatic and subperiosteal implants for clinical outcomes, complications, and procedural considerations.

Methods: A systematic search in major databases identified studies on zygomatic and subperiosteal implants, analyzing survival rates, complications, and patient satisfaction.

Results: Zygomatic implants (623 patients) showed a 96.1% survival rate, with sinusitis as a common complication. Subperiosteal implants (257 patients) had a 97.8% short-term survival rate, with soft tissue dehiscence as the main issue. CAD/CAM improved subperiosteal implant outcomes.

Conclusions: Both implants are effective, with zygomatic implants offering established long-term success and subperiosteal implants emerging as a customizable alternative. Further studies are needed for validation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无移植物修复萎缩的上颌-颧骨与骨膜下植入物-系统综述。

目的：当移植技术不适合时，严重萎缩上颌的康复是具有挑战性的。这篇综述比较了颧骨和骨膜下种植体的临床结果、并发症和手术注意事项。方法：对主要数据库进行系统检索，确定了颧骨和骨膜下植入物的研究，分析了生存率、并发症和患者满意度。结果：623例颧骨种植体成活率96.1%，常见并发症为鼻窦炎。骨膜下种植体（257例）短期生存率为97.8%，主要问题为软组织开裂。CAD/CAM改善了骨膜下种植体的效果。结论：两种种植体都是有效的，颧骨种植体提供了长期的成功，骨膜下种植体是一种可定制的替代选择。需要进一步的研究来验证。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量