Abstract
Purpose: No published research has compared patients’ quality of life and satisfaction with fixed prostheses supported by zygomatic implants with those supported by all-on-four prostheses. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients’ quality of life and satisfaction with fixed prostheses on zygomatic implants compared with the all-on-four concept. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 patients with atrophic edentulous maxillae were randomized into two groups: Group 1 (rehabilitated with fixed prostheses supported by 2–4 zygomatic and 2–4 conventional implants in the anterior region) and Group 2 (fixed prostheses on four implants in the anterior region following an all-on-four concept). One year after placement of the definitive prostheses, patients completed OHIP-14 and satisfaction questionnaires. Results: In all seven domains of the OHIP-14 and in the overall scores, a worse quality of life was found in Group 2 patients, with statistically significant differences between the two groups (p ≤ 0.05). Patients with zygomatic implants were more satisfied with their prostheses, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Conclusions: According to the results of this study, rehabilitation of patients with edentulous atrophic maxillae with prostheses supported by zygomatic implants combined with anterior implants provided better patient quality of life and satisfaction than prostheses supported by four implants.
Highlights
In the field of implant dentistry, rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae derived secondary to loss of teeth has presented major challenges for clinicians and patients
The aim of this study was to evaluate quality of life and satisfaction in patients treated with fixed prostheses supported by one or two zygomatic implants combined with two to four anterior implants, compared with patients with fixed prostheses supported with four implants in the anterior region of the maxilla
Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged over 18 years; with complete edentulism in the maxilla or some residual teeth with indications for tooth extraction; diagnosed by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with severe maxillary atrophy not suitable for rehabilitation with conventional implant supported prostheses; medically healthy subjects with absence of medical contraindications for oral surgical procedures (ASA I/II); patients willing to provide informed consent to take part in the study
Summary
In the field of implant dentistry, rehabilitation of severely atrophic maxillae derived secondary to loss of teeth has presented major challenges for clinicians and patients. Procedures using autologous bone may be used, but this is invasive as bone must be harvested from extraoral sites This approach will generate morbidity, risks, and complications such as loss of the graft, economic cost, technical difficulty, infection, and time needed for the graft to integrate [3]. As an alternative to these complex and invasive techniques, the use of anatomical buttresses and residual bone is a predictable way to rehabilitate the atrophic maxilla with dental implants [4,5] This approach avoids the complications and morbidity associated with bone grafting, reduces treatment costs and time, and results in high patient overall satisfaction [6,7]. Zygomatic implants were first introduced by Higuchi [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
