Autogenous bone grafting with conventional implants vs zygomatic implants for atrophic maxillae: a retrospective study of the oral health-related quality of life

Abstract

IntroductionAutogenous bone grafting (ABG)–combined or not with Le Fort I osteotomy (LFIO)–and zygomatic implants (ZI) are two reliable techniques for the fixed rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae. ZI allow a reduced treatment duration with no need to graft, immediate loading and in principle less morbidity. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare these two protocols on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). We also discussed implant and prosthetic survival rates, and biological complications. Material and methodsAll patients who benefited from ZI or ABG with conventional implants (CI) for a fixed maxillary rehabilitation, from November 2011 to April 2019, were included: 21 patients in the ABG group and 22 in the ZI group. OHRQoL was evaluated postoperatively by OHIP-14 questionnaire. ResultsOHIP-14 median scores were respectively 6.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0–13.0) and 6.0 (IQR 3.0–10.0) without significant difference (p = 0.97). Implant/prosthetic survival rates were 97.9%/100% and 97.1%/95.5%. Biological complications rates were 33.3% and 36.4% without significant difference (p = 0.83). DiscussionThe type of surgery or prosthesis does not seem to affect final OHRQoL, implant and prosthetic survival rates or biological complications rates.