Maxillary All-on-6 Treatment Using Zygomatic Implants. Bone Loss Evaluation by CBCT: 3-Year Follow-up.

Amira Mokhtar Abouelhuda, Abdallah Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Hassan Elkenawy, Salah Abd ElFattah Hegazy
{"title":"Maxillary All-on-6 Treatment Using Zygomatic Implants. Bone Loss Evaluation by CBCT: 3-Year Follow-up.","authors":"Amira Mokhtar Abouelhuda, Abdallah Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Hassan Elkenawy, Salah Abd ElFattah Hegazy","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate radiographic changes around six implants (two posterior zygomatic implants and four conventional implants) used with fixed detachable restorations in patients with severe maxillary posterior resorption with either polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or titanium frameworks.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In total, 12 maxillary edentulous patients were rehabilitated with six implants, including two posterior zygomatic and four conventionally placed implants for each patient following All-on-6 distribution and opposing a mandibular All-on-4 implant-retained fixed detachable prosthesis. A two-stage surgical unloaded healing protocol was performed. According to framework and teeth materials, there were two groups: group 1- CAD/CAM-milled framework from modified BioHPP PEEK bonded to PMMA crowns; and group 2-screwretained CAD/CAM-milled framework from titanium bonded to zirconia crowns. Bone loss evaluation for six implants was performed using CBCT at the time of delivery (T0), after 1 year (T1), and after 3 years (T2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in bone loss between the PEEK and titanium groups. There was less bone loss in the PEEK group around anterior conventional implants at buccal (P = .01), mesial (P < .001), and distal surfaces (P < .001) and for zygomatic implants at buccal (P = .004) and palatal surfaces (P = .003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of the study, the full-arch PEEK and titanium frameworks of fixed-detachable prostheses used with an All-on-6 distribution using zygomatic implants for rehabilitation of maxillary edentulous atrophied posterior arches was a promising treatment approach. Less bone loss was observed with the PEEK framework restorations combined with the PMMA crowns group.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"46-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate radiographic changes around six implants (two posterior zygomatic implants and four conventional implants) used with fixed detachable restorations in patients with severe maxillary posterior resorption with either polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or titanium frameworks.

Materials and methods: In total, 12 maxillary edentulous patients were rehabilitated with six implants, including two posterior zygomatic and four conventionally placed implants for each patient following All-on-6 distribution and opposing a mandibular All-on-4 implant-retained fixed detachable prosthesis. A two-stage surgical unloaded healing protocol was performed. According to framework and teeth materials, there were two groups: group 1- CAD/CAM-milled framework from modified BioHPP PEEK bonded to PMMA crowns; and group 2-screwretained CAD/CAM-milled framework from titanium bonded to zirconia crowns. Bone loss evaluation for six implants was performed using CBCT at the time of delivery (T0), after 1 year (T1), and after 3 years (T2).

Results: There was a statistically significant difference in bone loss between the PEEK and titanium groups. There was less bone loss in the PEEK group around anterior conventional implants at buccal (P = .01), mesial (P < .001), and distal surfaces (P < .001) and for zygomatic implants at buccal (P = .004) and palatal surfaces (P = .003).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the full-arch PEEK and titanium frameworks of fixed-detachable prostheses used with an All-on-6 distribution using zygomatic implants for rehabilitation of maxillary edentulous atrophied posterior arches was a promising treatment approach. Less bone loss was observed with the PEEK framework restorations combined with the PMMA crowns group.

使用颧骨植入物进行上颌“六合一”治疗。锥形束计算机断层扫描骨丢失评估;三年的随访。
目的:评估6个种植体(2个颧骨后部种植体和4个常规种植体)与聚醚醚酮(PEEK)或钛框架固定可拆卸修复体配合使用的严重上颌后牙吸收患者周围的放射学变化。材料和方法:12名上颌无牙患者接受了6个种植体的修复,其中包括两个后颧骨种植体和4个常规放置的种植体,每个患者遵循全对六分布,相对下颌全对四种植体保留固定可拆卸假体。采用两阶段无负荷手术治疗方案。根据骨架和牙齿材料,分为两组;第一组:改良BioHPP PEEK的CAD-CAM铣削框架,结合到聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯牙冠上。第二组:螺钉固定CAD-CAM铣削钛框架,结合锆冠。在植入时(T0)、一年后(T1)和三年后(T2),使用锥形束计算机断层扫描对六个植入物的骨丢失进行评估。结果:PEEK组和钛合金组的骨丢失率有统计学意义。PEEK组在颊表面的前部传统植入物周围的骨损失较小(P=0.01),在内侧表面(P结论:在本研究的范围内,全弓PEEK和钛框架固定式可拆卸修复体采用All-on-Six分布,使用颧骨植入物修复上颌无牙萎缩后弓是一种很有前途的治疗方法。PEEK框架修复体与PMMA牙冠组相结合可观察到较少的骨损失。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信