Bone Regeneration and Soft Tissue Enhancement Around Zygomatic Implants: Retrospective Case Series

Peñarrocha-Diago M; Bernabeu-Mira Jc; Fernández-Ruíz A; Aparicio C; Peñarrocha-Oltra D

doi:10.3390/ma13071577

Bone Regeneration and Soft Tissue Enhancement Around Zygomatic Implants: Retrospective Case Series

Materials (Basel). 2020 Mar 29;13(7):1577. doi: 10.3390/ma13071577.

Authors

Peñarrocha-Diago M¹, Bernabeu-Mira Jc¹, Fernández-Ruíz A², Aparicio C³, Peñarrocha-Oltra D¹

Affiliations

¹ Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Av. de Blasco Ibáñez, 13, 46010 Valencia, Spain.
² Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, 07800 Ibiza, Spain.
³ Hepler Bone Clinic, ZAGA Center, 08017 Barcelona, Spain.

Abstract

Purpose: To present a case series of zygomatic implants combined with bone regeneration and soft tissue enhancement techniques to reduce the risk of biological delayed complications such as maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recession.

Materials and methods: Zygomatic implants placed simultaneously with different bone regeneration techniques (buccal, palatal and buccal-palatal bone regeneration) and soft tissue enhancement techniques (pediculate and free connective tissue graft) were followed for at least 12 months. The following information was collected: patient age and sex, number of zygomatic implants, zygomatic implant success rate, zygomatic implant position according to classification of the Zygomatic Anatomy Guide Approach (ZAGA), sinus membrane perforation, type and outcome of the bone regeneration or the soft tissue enhancement technique, bone gain (width and length along the zygomatic implant) and keratinized buccal mucosa width, duration of follow-up, loading protocol (immediate or delayed) and biological complications (maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recession).

Results: Thirty-one zygomatic implants placed in 19 patients were included. All implants were successful and none of the implants presented biological complications. The bone regeneration technique was successful in 30 of 31 cases with a mean palatal bone width of 3 mm, buccal bone width of 2.65 mm, palatal bone length of 6.5 mm and buccal bone length of 8.3 mm. The success rate of soft tissue enhancement was 100% and it established at least 2 mm of keratinized buccal mucosa width in all implants.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, bone regeneration and soft tissue enhancement techniques were useful to establish more favorable conditions of the peri-implant tissues around zygomatic implants. This could prevent biological complications such as maxillary sinusitis and soft tissue recessions. Prospective and randomized controlled clinical trials with longer follow-up periods are advisable.

Keywords: bone regeneration; soft tissue regeneration; zygomatic implant complications; zygomatic implants.